experiences in farmer’s biodiversity...

Experiences inFarmer’s Biodiversity

Management

ForumEnvironment & Development

Experiences inFarmer’s Biodiversity

Management

Report on the International Workshopon Animal and Plant Genetic Resources in Agriculture at the

Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin, Germany16-18 May 2000

2

Published by:German NGO Forum on Environment & DevelopmentAm Michaelshof 8-10D-53177 BonnPhone: +49-(0)228-359704Fax: +49-(0)228-359096E-Mail: [email protected]: www.forumue.de

Chief Editor: Jürgen Maier

Editors: Ricardo Armonia, Susanne Gura

Layout: Monika Brinkmöller

Funding of the Workshop including this reportis gratefully acknowledged:MisereorGesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbHBrot für die WeltRockefeller FoundationAusschuss für entwicklungspolitische Bildung und PublizistikStiftung UmverteilenStiftung WeiterdenkenHeinrich Böll StiftungEuropean Community

“This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the EuropeanCommunity. The views expressed herein are those of the German NGO Forum Envi-ronment and Development/Deutscher Naturschutzring and can therefore in no way betaken to reflect the official opinion of the European Community.”

Bonn, Germany, May 2001

Imprint

3

Summary .......................................................... 4

Introduction ...................................................... 9

Field Visits ...................................................... 11

Plenary Presentations ..................................... 16

Farmers’ experiences in biodiversity management . 20Implications of biotechnology and patentingfor agro-biodiversity management .......................... 24

Working Group Outputsand Recommendations .................................... 24

Closing Remarks ............................................. 32

Annexes ......................................................... 35

Selected Presentations ............................................... 36Working Group Results as Presented inthe Workshop Plenary ................................................ 69Abbreviations ............................................................. 82List of Participants ...................................................... 83

Contents

Contents

4

The Workshop on Experiences inFarmers’ Biodiversity Managementheld 16-18 May 2000 in Schorf-

heide-Chorin, Germany was one of theNGO activities accompanying the Glo-bal Forum on Agricultural Research(GFAR 2000). Around forty internationaland German NGO representatives,farmers and journalists from 15 coun-tries in Africa, Asia, Latin America andthe Northern countries participated. TheGerman NGO Forum Environment andDevelopment, the administration of theBiosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin,and the sector project “ManagingAgrobiodiversity in Rural Areas” of theGerman Technical Cooperation (GTZ),jointly organized it. Funding was kindlyprovided by Misereor, Brot fuer dieWelt, Rockefeller Foundation, GermanTechnical Cooperation (GTZ), as well asthe European Commission.

The Workshop comprised

1. Field visits to biosphere reserve ar-eas in Germany – nature parks, or-ganic farms and research sites;

2. Presentation of experiences ofNGOs/farmers based on cases fromAsia, Africa and Latin America; and

3. Working group and plenary discus-sions, which produced recommenda-tions.

During the field visits, main similari-ties and differences between North andSouth in ecological farming were iden-tified. While consumer demand is animportant motivating factor besides

Summary

ecological awareness in the North, eco-logical farming in the South is often mo-tivated by subsistence needs and a lackof resources to buy inputs like chemicalfertilizer or pesticides. A notion of back-ward farming techniques is often con-nected with ecological farming in theSouth. Rarely, organic products fetch apremium price in the South; and there isa lack of certification arrangements,with a few exceptions. In the North, sub-sidies are available to organic farmers,while in parts of the South, the WorldBank’s structural adjustment pro-grammes ban such subsidies.

In both South and North awareness israising that ecological farming providesecological services to society. Economicviability is an important criterion in bothNorth and South. Ecological farmerstend to actively develop their farmingsystems; working in partnership withscientists occurs more frequently amongecological than conventional farmers.

The plenary presentations coveredexperiences of farmers and NGOs – ricebreeding by Thai farmers, the relation-ship of genetic resources conservationto subsistence conditions in Ethiopia,partnerships and capacity building ingenetic resources conservation and de-velopment in Southeast Asia, animalgenetic resources conservation andmanagement in India, vitamin A en-riched genetically modified rice in thePhilippines, and inclusion of farmers/communities’ rights in the intellectualproperty rights discussions.

Summary

5

The working group discussions fo-cused on the following topics:

l Incentives for farmers to enhanceagro-biodiversity and protect theirproperty rights;

l Formal, informal and private co-operation to foster agro-biodiversity;

l Animal genetic resourcebiodiversity;

l Bio-technology;l Intellectual property rights; andl Bio-piracy.

They examined incentives, relation-ships and cooperation with regard toenhancing agro-biodiversity conserva-tion and development, and their impli-cation for agricultural research.

The workshop recommended the fol-lowing:

Incentives for farmers toenhance agro-biodiversity

l Farmers’ access to land should besecure. Lack of access to land orinsecurity in land tenure discour-ages farmers to further invest inland development and thereforethey neglect biodiversity.

l Genetic resources policies shouldencourage farmers to save, ex-change and develop seeds andlocal animal breeds. Seed poli-cies based on UPOV’91 limit theuse and exchange of traditionalvarieties.

l Policies should not be biasedagainst traditional varieties. Ex-port orientation usually leads toagricultural policies favouringHigh-yielding varieties (HYVs)such that extension, research andcredit facilities revolve around thehigh-input HYVs.

l A market for traditional varietiesshould be developed; and con-sumers should not follow govern-ments in their preference for intro-

duced or ”improved” varieties orproducts.

l Success stories on agro-biodiver-sity initiatives should be shared.

l Strong partnerships between andamong the farmers, scientists andNGOs should be established. Re-search that is mostly geared toHYV’s and high yields discour-ages such partnerships and agro-biodiversity.

l Financial resources for participa-tory agro-biodiversity activitiesshould be available.

Formal, informal, and privatesector cooperation to fosteragro-biodiversity

The recommendations formulatedare based on the goals of poverty alle-viation, food security and environmen-tal sustainability of the ConsultativeGroup on International Agricultural Re-search (CGIAR). Specifically, the recom-mendations focused on the researchagenda, access to CGIAR resources,and institutional transformation andgovernance.

With regard to its researchagenda, the CGIAR should:

l Focus on ”traditional” crops.l Focus on crops needed rather by

small farmers than by commercialagriculture.

l Consult with farming communitiesto identify their needs.

l Further develop participatorymethods and disseminate themthrough national and interna-tional research systems.

l Integrate the research agendawith respect to biodiversity andinto the wider developmentagenda.

l Delete the Genetically ModifiedOrganisms (GMOs) from theCGIAR’s approach to environ-mental sustainability.

Summary

6

On Resource Access andPartnershipsl NGOs should not enter research

partnership with the CGIAR aslong as it pursues the patentingpolicy.

l There should be no researchcollaboration with the publicsector without proper evaluationand disclosure of the impact ofthe research.

l Cooperation agreements shouldbe made transparent and moni-tored. Specific policies should bein place for contractual relation-ships.

Institutional Transformationand Governance, incl. Accessto Germplasml CGIAR governance should be

made more representative – withmore participation from the Southand with greater gender represen-tation.

l The CGIAR should, in its policy onaccess to germplasm collection,safeguard the rights and interestsof the South and the small farm-ers.

Incentives for and InstitutionalCooperation on Farmers’/StockKeepers’ Animal GeneticResource Management

l More awareness is needed on thecontribution of pastoralists to Ani-mal Genetic Resources Manage-ment. An information system isneeded that links pastoralists andorganizations. Pastoralists shouldbe involved in policy decisions, sothat agricultural policies aremade in favour of pastoralists.For example, subsidies for ”im-proved” breeds should be with-drawn, and pastoralists involvedin land use planning.

l Markets for rare breed products(e.g. camel milk) should be devel-

oped; Industry sponsoring couldbe looked for.

l Selection criteria should includeAnimal Genetic Resources conser-vation aspects.

l The productivity paradigm shouldbe revised. More research on rarebreed qualities is needed.

l National laws should be screenedwhether they support or suppressanimal biodiversity. Informal lawshould be documented andrespected. Also, awareness of bio-piracy should be increased andbio-piracy of Animal GeneticResources monitored.

l Not more organizations areneeded, but more cooperationbetween them is needed. Com-mon objectives are an essentialprecondition for their coopera-tion. Especially, multilateral andinternational organizations shouldcooperate on Animal GeneticResources Management.

l A lot can be learned from thedevelopment of Plant GeneticResources (PGR) managementover the last decade. Therefore,more interaction between AnimalGenetic Resources (AnGR) andPGR organizations is needed.

Intellectual Property Rights

l Agricultural research should takepositions in favour of the farmersand stock keepers in order toprotect their rights e.g. to saveand exchange seeds and animalgenetic resources.

l Patents should not apply to lifeforms. The CGIAR should notengage in patenting, not even indefensive patenting. Othermechanisms should be sought toshow evidence of prior art.

l The agreement on Trade-RelatedIntellectual Property (TRIPS)should be reconciled with theConvention on Biodiversity (CBD)– including the expansion of

Summary

7

”geographical indication” (i.e. thecommunity from which a geneticresource originates has a right tothat genetic resource) to coveragricultural products in general.

l Agricultural research organiza-tions should monitor and takeaction against bio-piracy, in orderto avoid bio-piracy throughscientific cooperation.

Biotechnology

Laboratory research on gene tech-nology may be acceptable providedthat the following demands are met:

l That the CGIAR biotechnology re-search budget will be re-orientedto biosafety and significantly in-crease research on safety issues.

l That a comprehensive safetyframework is developed and thesocio-economic impact is as-sessed.

l That the CGIAR plays an impor-tant role in establishing appropri-ate scientific protocols for the as-sessment of biotechnology stan-dards, and in strengthening the in-adequate and incompleteMontreal protocol.

l That there is significant publicparticipation in the discussion ofrisks and in the monitoring ofgene technology activities.

Bio-piracy

At international level: Accep-tance of and compliance with the CBDparticularly regarding the prior in-formed consent (PIC) and materialtransfer agreements (MTA) in order toensure that communities share the ben-efits of the germplasm transfer.

At national level: There is a needto establish and enforce legislation thatlooks into the problems of bio-piracyand solves them. This could be a legis-

lation that treats ”oral knowledge” atpar with published documentation asevidence to show ”prior art” in chal-lenging patents made, for example, onIndigenous Knowledge.

l Patents are covered by nationallaws (not international laws),which make it difficult to chal-lenge patents granted in anothercountry. There is need to integrateinto the TRIPS agreement an inter-national context of bio-piracy.

l Bio-piracy should be treated as acriminal offence and with stiff pen-alties.

l One problem is that many of thebio-piracy activities are carriedout through the scientific researchnetworks – there is a need forguidelines to avoid bio-piracythrough scientific cooperation.

l Forgeries of written documenta-tion have to be watched out for inestablishing prior art.

At local level: Awareness-buildingactivities and sustained vigilance at thelevel of communities, local officials andlocal NGOs are simple but effective lo-cal actions for stopping bio-piracy. Forexample, simply making people under-stand that the taking out of materials bytourists may constitute bio-piracy is al-ready one important step toward mini-mizing bio-piracy.

The recommendations are carried tothe following Workshop of Non-Gov-ernment and Small Farmer Organisa-tions in Dresden1 , where these groupsformulate their positions for the GlobalForum on Agricultural Research (GFAR),21-23 May 2000, Dresden. The chal-lenge there is to transform the GFAR

1 German NGO Forum on Environment & Develop-ment: FOOD FOR ALL – Farmers First in Research. In-ternational Workshop of Non-Government and SmallFarmer Organisations on Research for Poverty Allevia-tion. Dresden, Germany, 19-20 May 2000, report avail-able at: http://www.GFAR2000-NGOactivities.de

Summary

8

into a genuine forum on issues confront-ing agricultural research. A critical dis-cussion point for civil society therefore isto determine if GFAR is something that itwants to pursue. If so, and to the extentthat the private sector, at which the pri-

orities for agricultural research arelargely oriented, takes the GFAR seri-ously – the next question to ask is:Would civil society be prepared to col-laborate with private corporations?

Summary

9

The Workshop on Experiences inFarmers’ Biodiversity Management is part of the NGO activities

accompanying the Global Forum onAgricultural Research (GFAR 2000). TheWorkshop was held 16-18 May 2000in Schorfheide-Chorin, Germany – justbefore the GFAR meeting in Dresden,Germany held 21-23 May 2000. TheWorkshop happened at a time whennational policies on Intellectual Prop-erty Rights (IPR) on genetic resourceswere being formulated to conform toWorld Trade Organization (WTO) re-quirements but with little regard to therequirements set by the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD). The Work-shop objectives were to:

n Exchange of experiences of practitio-ners from the North and the Southon on-farm management of geneticresources;

n Contribute to progress in interna-tional NGO cooperation on on-farmmanagement of genetic resources;

n Prepare a position on agro-biodiversity for the InternationalWorkshop NGO and Small FarmerOrganizations on Agricultural Re-search and Poverty Alleviation inDresden on 19-20 May 2000; and

n Provide information material to thepress.

To facilitate the exchange of experi-ences and information, the Workshopincluded (i) field visits to biosphere re-serve areas in Germany – nature parks,organic farms and research sites;(ii) presentation of experiences ofNGOs/farmers based on representa-tive cases from Asia, Africa and Latin

Introduction

America; and (iii) working group andplenary discussions. The working groupdiscussions focused on the followingtopics:

n Incentives for farmers to enhanceagro-biodiversity and protect theirproperty rights,

n Formal, informal and private coop-eration to foster agro-biodiversity,

n How to maintain animal geneticbiodiversity and assist farmers/stockkeepers in the management of ani-mal biodiversity,

n Intellectual property rights,

n Bio-technology and

n Bio-piracy.

Around forty participants (interna-tional and German NGO representa-tives, farmers and journalists) from 15countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America,Eastern Europe and Northern countriesparticipated at the Workshop. Most ofthem joined the next GFAR 2000 ac-companying activity – the InternationalWorkshop of NGOs and Small FarmerOrganizations on Research on PovertyAlleviation – where further discussionson the issues were pursued. It was in thesecond workshop where the DresdenDeclaration of NGOs and Small Farm-ers’ Organizations was drafted and thenpresented to the GFAR 2000 meeting.

The German NGO Forum Environ-ment and Development (Susanne Gura),the administration of the Biosphere Re-serve Schorfheide-Chorin (AnnetteMeyer), and the sector project “Manag-ing Agrobiodiversity in Rural Areas” ofthe German Technical Cooperation

Introduction

10

(Annette von Lossau and BeateWeiskopf), jointly organized the work-shop. Funding was kindly provided byMisereor, Brot fuer die Welt, Rockefeller

Workshop Programme

16 May 2000

n Field Visits:

- Hoellberghof: animal genetic resources and nature conservation, historical land use andcommunity development

- Brodowin farm: on-farm research, marketing and ecological agriculture

n Evaluation of the field visits

17 May 2000

n Presentation of experiences and discussions on farmers’ biodiversity management

- The Alternative Agriculture Network in Thailand by Suksan Kantree- Experiences of SOS-Sahel in On-Farm Management of Genetic Resources in Ethiopia by

Eyasu Elias- Community Based Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Development by Wilhelmina

Pelegrina, Biodiversity Use and Conservation Program, SEARICE, Philippines- Indigenous Institutions for Managing Livestock Genetic Diversity in Rajasthan (India) by

Hanwat Singh Rathore, Society for Indigenous Livestock Research and Development, India- Implementing the Convention on Biodiversity with Respect to Domestic Animal Diversity by

Ilse Koehler-Rollefson, League for pastoral people, Germany

n Working Groups discussions and plenary presentation of results on:

- Incentives for farmers to enhance agro-biodiversity and to protect property rights of farmers- Co-operation between the formal, informal and private sectors to foster agro-biodiversity- Incentives for maintaining animal genetic diversity and assisting farmers/stock keepers in

the management of animal bio-diversity

n Optional field visit to Greiffenberg: food plant genetic resources conservation, eco-tourism,environmental education

18 May 2000

n Presentation of experiences and discussions on the implications of biotechnology and patentingfor agro-biodiversity

- Issues and Implications of the Vitamin A Enriched Genetically Modified Rice by CharitoMedina, MASIPAG, Philippines

- Intellectual Property Rights by Suman Sahai, Gene Campaign, India- Community Rights and Farmers’ Rights in Thailand by Witoon Lianchamroon, BIOTHAI,

Thailand

n Working Groups discussions and plenary presentation of results on:

- Intellectual property Rights- Biotechnology- Bio-piracy

Foundation, German Technical Coop-eration (GTZ), as well as the EuropeanCommission.

Introduction

11

The participants visited theHoellberghof, a farm in the Nature Reserve Niederlausitzer Land-

ruecken situated half way between Ber-lin and Dresden, and the Ecological Vil-lage Brodowin within the biosphere re-serve Schorfheide-Chorin, situatedaround 50 km Northeast of Berlin.

Hoellberghof

The Hoellberg Farm demonstratesnature conservation through historicalland use and the fostering of cultureand tradition based on the practices offarmers who lived 200 years ago –when biological diversity was at itspeak. The Hoellberg Farm is also a sitefor environmental education and re-search. It coordinates eco-tourism de-velopment within the nature reserve andthe management of nature conservationby farmers compensated for their work.Presently, kids and adults enter the na-ture reserve for free. However, with thewithdrawal of support from the minis-tries of agriculture and environment, thecharging of entrance fees is now beingcontemplated to cover the cost of main-taining and further developing the park.

The nature reserve specializes inthree areas – forestry, agriculture andlandscaping. In forestry, the emphasis isshifting from a pine monoculture into amixed deciduous forest. For agriculture,the focus is on improving problematicsoils such that one can still do agricul-ture while trying to establish a habitatfor rare species. As such, the nature re-serve (i) has a ”farmer garden” which isa collection of 200 organically-grownplant species that are at least 200 yearsold and (ii) is into the preservation of

The Field Visits

several endangered animal species in-cluding the Polish Koniks (horses), theGerman Grazing Pigs, the GermanBlack Pied (cows), the Skudde sheep,and the Thuringian forest goats. Theseanimals are being raised mostly fortheir value in landscape conservationparticularly of the small plant speciesthat cannot usually compete for survivalwith the tall species of shrubs and trees.Efforts are also taken to ”re-nature” ar-eas previously devoted to brown coalmining into protection areas

Oekodorf Brodowin

The Ecological Village Brodowin is a1,202 hectare agricultural area situatedin the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin that showcases organic agricul-ture where on-farm research, marketingand ecological agriculture are key

The Field Visits

Frankfurt

Dresden

Magdeburg

km 25 50 75 100

DessauCottbus

Eberswalde

Berlin

Leipzig

Brodowin

Höllberghof

N

12

components. The farm is devoted to(i) the cultivation of cereals, fodder, veg-etables and meadow orchards; and(ii) livestock breeding and productionmainly involving dairy cows and fatten-ing pigs. The dairy production takes upthe largest part of the farm.

The on-farm research activities inBrodowin are done in cooperation withvarious scientific organisations based inGermany and Switzerland. In general,these research activities aim to ensurethat the farm meets the requirements ofnature conservation while at the sametime maintaining an acceptable levelof economic effects on the farm busi-ness. Two such research projects wereon (i) the effects of agricultural modesof production on birds, especially theskylarks, and on arthropods; and(ii) improving the udder health of dairycows using homeopathic complex-agents in the treatment of udder dis-eases that are acceptable to organicfarming principles.

Eco-Basket Brodowin is the marketingorganization of the village and takescare of the door-to-door delivery toabout 1000 customers in the Greater

Berlin area of the farm’s ecologicalproducts – vegetables, dairy andcheese products, eggs, meat, sausageand bread. Orders can also be placedon-line (via e-mail). Brodowin has ahomepage (www.brodowin.de) that pro-vides information not only on the assort-ment of the eco-basket products butalso information on organic/ecologicalfarming and the ecological villagefarms.

Assessment of the FieldVisits

The participants’ impressions, andthe similarities and the differences inagro-biodiversity management betweenthe Southern and Northern countrieswere the focus of the assessment of thefield visits.

Impressions

Participants in general appreciatedthe educational aspects of the field visitsand the exceptional reception providedto them by their hosts particularly thegenerous sharing of their ideas in clear

The Field Visits

Thuringian Forest Goat

Sour

ce:

GEH

- A

. Fe

ldm

ann

13

and concise terms. Participants alsofound the visits interesting for variousreasons:

l Many ideas may be adapted intheir respective countries e.g. thecombination of eco-tourism andagro-ecological management;

l The educational function of suchagro-ecological projects;

l The building of processes to com-bine ecological farming andnatural conservation has gone along way –nature conservation iseven more difficult than organicfarming.

l Farmers’ motivation and commit-ment to conservation is crucial. Incontrast to Brandenburg farmers,African farmers are not ready tosacrifice 10% of their yield for birdconservation

l The recognition of the multiplefunctions of genetic resources –particularly the importance of in-digenous breeds in the light of de-velopment of modern biotechnol-ogy.

l Some were surprised to know thatEurope has semi-arid regions.

Similarities in BiodiversityManagement in the South andthe North

With the negative impact of conven-tional agriculture on the natural habitat,organic farming has become a globaltrend. It has reached a stage where inboth the North and the South organicfarming observes the same principlesas nature conservation – including theconservation of endangered crops andanimal species (e.g. through in situ con-servation). Organic farmers in both theNorth and the South are often under-stood as providing ”ecological ser-vices” to society.

Organic farmers, in whichever partof the globe, recognize that economicviability is a very critical element in theconservation of agro-biodiversity; this isa tall order considering that the shiftfrom conventional to organic agricul-ture often means higher labour intensityand an initial decline in production.Not all farmers are willing to face suchconsequences, as their needs are imme-diate. Getting credits for organic farm-ing is difficult in present society where

The Field Visits

Bentheim Black Pied Pig

Sour

ce:

GEH

- A

. Fe

ldm

ann

14

farming is often reduced to economics.However, society has to adjust to thefact that the benefits of organic farmingare not always economic and not al-ways immediate.

Fortunately, the global trend for or-ganic farming and nature conservationis happening and this is because inboth the North and the South, there areenthusiastic people who are into suchactivities. These are farmers who de-velop new farming systems, especiallywith the increasing trend for farmer-sci-entists partnerships where farmersthemselves become researchers. Thecreation of such new types of farmers isa need in both North and South.

North-South Differences inAgro-Biodiversity Management

One immediate and noticeable dif-ference pointed out was that farmers inEurope could afford nature conserva-tion for the sake of nature conservation– e.g. an emphasis on animal breedingfor landscape conservation. Farmers inthe South, however, cannot do the same

unless food security and income issuesare directly addressed in nature conser-vation activities – therefore, there is anemphasis on crops in biodiversity pro-grammes in the South. This ”afforda-bility issue”, of doing nature conserva-tion for nature conservation’s sake, canbe traced to the higher income level offarmers in the North, and to more andbetter quality of government support. Tocite a few cases:

n There are government subsidies inEurope while in some parts of AfricaThe World Bank’s structural adjust-ment programmes ban such subsi-dies.

n In the South, there is no premiumprice for organically grown products(with a few exceptions in e.g. Zimba-bwe, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, R.S.A.).

n Certification of organically grownproducts is hardly present in theSouth except for those certified byforeigners, like the GermanNaturland certifies organicallygrown sugar in the Philippines.

The Field Visits

German Black Pied Cattle

Sour

ce:

GEH

- A

. Fe

ldm

ann

15

n Governments in developing coun-tries tend to come out with blanketrecommendations that run into con-flict with biodiversity conservationprogrammes while there is a morediverse approach in Europe. With thelack of support of governments in theSouth to support their farmers, thediscussion on agro-biodiversity in theSouth focused on farmers’ organiza-tions and NGOs. Some saw it as apolitical struggle – e.g. with respectto landholdings and agrarian re-form. In the South, without land own-ership, farmers would not invest todevelop the land, a lost case foragro-biodiversity. In contrast, mostfarmers in the North would still investin the land even if they do not own it.

n Organic farms in Germany are moremechanized than their counterpartsin the South and farm sizes in theNorth are bigger and have moreuniform designs. Their products areless diverse than products of South-ern organic farms. In this sense,farmers in the North tend to view or-ganic farming as equally progres-sive as conventional agriculturewhile their Southern counterpartslook at it as backwards, as they can’tafford ”modern” inputs like chemi-cals and pesticides.

n In the North, the demand of consum-ers for organic products is an impor-tant motivating factor. In the South,organic farming is practiced in mostcases out of the subsistence needsand the lack of resources.

Husum Pig

Sour

ce:

GEH

- G

. Sc

hulz

e

16

Farmers’ Experiences onBiodiversity Management

Rice Breeding by Thai Farmers,presented by Suksan Kantree

The Alternative Agriculture Network(AAN) in Thailand was established in1990 following the realization of thenegative effects brought about by theGreen Revolution. It is composed ofabout 100 peoples’ organizations(POs) and non-government organiza-tions (NGOs) comprising a total of20,000 families. One of AAN’s coremembers is the Khao Kwan Foundationthat develops alternative technologies,in particular, rice breeding by farmers.

To stop the further loss of rice variet-ies in Thailand, Khao Kwan/AAN firstengaged in rice varieties collection. In1990, they came up with 3,000 variet-ies in their broad collection, which theyplaced in government gene banks andcovered by a memorandum of agree-ment so that they can have access tothe collection when needed. The criteria

Plenary Presentations

used for collecting these varieties werebased on farmers’ demands for seedsrequiring low inputs, no chemical pesti-cides and have good cooking quality(and not necessarily high yields asstriven at by government research sta-tions).

By 1994, Khao Kwan participated inthe breeding programs of rice researchstations. They realized that conventionalresearch stations couldn’t produce thegood quality seeds that would fulfil therequirements of the farmers and con-cluded that farmers themselves shoulddo the breeding. At the same time,Khao Kwan/AAN learned aboutMASIPAG’s work (a farmer organisationcarrying out research) in the Philippines,training farmers in rice breeding tech-niques using inexpensive and readilyavailable tools. Khao Kwan sent farm-ers and staff to MASIPAG for trainingand then started its own breedingprogramme with Thai farmers.

On the basis of that experience,Khao Kwan/AAN compared conven-tional with farmers’ breedingprogrammes (see table) and concludedthat the cost/benefit relation of farmers’breeding programmes is much betterfrom the farmers’ perspective.

Genetic Resources and Subsis-tence in Ethiopia, by Eyasu Elias

SOS-Sahel is a British NGO with de-velopment projects in the dryland areasof sub-Saharan Africa. In Ethiopia, itworks with subsistence farmers facingproblems of land degradation andfood security since the late 1980s. Forthese subsistence farmers, crop geneticdiversity is critical to attaining house-

Rice Biodiversity in Thailand

m There were at least 50,000 varietiesof rice in Thailand in 1950.

m In 1990, there were only 5,000 –6,000 varieties accounted for in theThai national gene bank. Of these,only 15 varieties are cultivated by90% of Thai farmers.

m The 1993-94 brown plant hopperoutbreak in Thailand destroyed 50% of the country’s rice yields.

m 35-40% of rice produced by Thaifarmers


17

hold level food security. Unfortunately,genetic erosion is now a serious threatto the existing genetic diversity in Ethio-pia and therefore, to the country’s foodsecurity as well. There are two majorfactors for the onset of this threat –modernization and drought.

To meet the needs of a growingpopulation, governments have inter-vened to transform traditional agricul-tural systems. In the process, modernvarieties of crops have been widely in-troduced along with the associatedpackages of fertilizers, pesticides andcredit. In Wollaita, Southern Ethiopia,farmers refer to a 1970-1980 WorldBank funded project as having broughtfertilizer and hybrid seeds and famineto them. Before the project, these farm-ers used to plant drought resistant localvarieties of maize and root crops suchas enset, sweet potato, taro and yam.

The recurrent drought in the countryfurther contributed to the genetic ero-

sion. Crop failures made disappear lo-cal varieties that farmers have main-tained through generations. Farmerswere simply unable to retain seeds forfuture cropping. Relief operations in re-sponse to the famine further contributedto the displacement of these traditionalvarieties, as the food grain provisions(usually from the HYVs) became theonly source of seeds for the farmers.These HYV grains used as seeds did notsurvive the harsh drought conditions.

The SOS-Sahel initiative was not pri-marily for agro-biodiversity conserva-tion but rather, to address the farmers’needs for planting materials and seeds.Agro-biodiversity became part of theproject because the suitable crop vari-eties retrieved, screened and multipliedby farmers themselves for distribution toother farmers mostly were traditionalvarieties. The project did not provideany reward to farmers for producing thetraditional varieties as they themselvesfelt the need for those local varieties for

Activity/Issue Conventional Farmer’s

Problem analysis Scientists NGOs and Farmers

Development of objectives Funding agency/scientists Farmers

Breeding process

§ Cross Scientists Farmers

§ Selection Scientists NGOs and Farmers

Place Research Station Farmer’s field

Evaluation Scientists Farmers

Field Testing Scientists and Farmers -

Extension Government Extensionists Farmers

Cost High Very low

Who benefits? Trans-nationalcorporations/scientists

Farmers

Farmers’ social development Poor Good

TABLE 1: Comparison of the Conventional and the Farmer’s BreedingProgrammes


18

their subsistence. As an incentive, how-ever, the project provided farm tools oncredit and at subsidized prices, and en-gaged in integrated watershed man-agement as an indirect support to thecontinued cultivation of local crops. Todate, the project has brought back intoproduction two local varieties of rice,five varieties of maize and four sweetpotato varieties.

Regional Partnerships and Ca-pacity Building in Genetic Re-sources Conservation and Devel-opment, by Ditdit Pelegrina

The Southeast Asia Regional Institutefor Community Education (SEARICE) hasbeen into plant genetic resources con-servation and development since 1989– particularly in Thailand, Malaysia,Philippines and Vietnam. SEARICE isalso covering the Lao People’s Demo-cratic Republic and Bhutan under its newproject – the Biodiversity Use and Con-servation Asia Program (BUCAP).

BUCAP has the following objectives:

l Strengthen the farmers’ role andparticipation in plant genetic re-sources (PGR) research.

l Improve and increase agro-biodiversity.

l Strengthen/build capacity of localorganizations in PGR

l Experiment on and develop a newform of partnership between thegrantee and the aid agency wherethe latter also takes an active rolein policy advocacy.

BUCAP will be operating in threecountries – Vietnam, Lao PDR andBhutan. Part of the criteria used for se-lecting these countries were (i) the eco-system type and state of the agriculturaleconomy in relation to the challengethey pose to PGR conservation vis-à-visthe farmers’ needs and (ii) the existenceof suitable partner organisations. Viet-

nam was selected for its intensive irri-gated rice system where (i) genetic ero-sion is pronounced and (ii) formal sci-ence dominates the development of ge-netic resources; therefore, the need tostrengthen farmers’ role in plant breed-ing is very high. BUCAP will work withthe Plant Protection Department. TheNational Integrated Pest ManagementProgramme, the FAO-IPM Programmeand International Cooperation for De-velopment and Solidarity (CIDSE)-Viet-nam are providing the technical sup-port and financial oversight.

The choice of Lao PDR is because itis a country in transition – from subsis-tence economy to intensive agriculture.The challenge here is to stop geneticerosion and to maintain farmer scienceas the country goes into intensive agri-culture. BUCAP will be implementedwith the participation of the NationalIPM Programme of the Agriculture andExtension Agency, the National Agricul-tural Research Centre and selected sec-ondary agricultural schools. The coun-try partner is Oxfam-Solidarity (Bel-gium).

Bhutan is still into subsistence agri-culture but its high altitude have playeddefining roles in the conservation anddevelopment of the country’s geneticresources. The challenge here is tomake the system productive whilemaintaining the role of farmers in cropdevelopment and conservation. The lo-

Some Comments from thePlenary

m Though difficult, there is a needto convince government officialsin this effort (in response to thebias of BUCAP/SEARICE inworking with NGOs/People’sOrganisations).

m Where is the CGIAR in thiseffort of BUCAP?


19

cal partner is the National Agro-biodi-versity Programme and the RenewableNatural Resources Research Centre.

Since BUCAP is just starting, it is atthe stage of developing specific pro-grammes of action through a multi-stakeholder approach with the localpartners and the other local players.There is admittedly a bias in workingwith NGOs and People’s Organisationson the part of SEARICE, which makesthe case of Bhutan more interesting be-cause it is the first time SEARICE willimplement a project with the govern-ment as main partner.

Making the Case for IncreasedAttention to Animal Genetic Re-sources, by Hantwant Singh andIlse Koehler-Rollefson

Most of the discussions on genetic re-sources conservation and developmentare often taken in the context of plantgenetic resources (PGR) with only minorreferences to animal genetic resources(AnGR). In this Workshop, two presenta-tions ensured that discussions on ge-netic resources conservation and devel-opment distinguish between plant andanimal genetic resources and looked atspecific features of animal genetic re-sources. The first presentation byHantwant Singh Rathore of LokhitPashu-Palak Sansthan focused on theexperiences in India on indigenous sys-tems for managing livestock genetic di-versity emanating from religious/cul-tural and socio-economic practices andbeliefs. The second presentation by IlseKoehler-Rollefson, League for PastoralPeople proposed strategies for conserv-ing domestic animal diversity in theSouth that are consistent with the UNConvention on Biological Diversity(CBD).

Suggestions made in line with theconservation of domestic animal diver-sity were to:

n Collect information on the local/in-digenous institutions, breeding prac-tices and cultures of peoples whonurtured and shaped so many hardylivestock breeds.

n Decentralize activities to involvestock raisers as lead actors in on-the-

Examples of Indigenous AnGRManagement Practices inRajasthan, India

m The Raikas (considered the most ”so-cially backward” caste in India) keeporal records of genealogies, tracingthe ancestry of their camel herds infemale lines.

m If a person owns a good-quality malecamel, that person is obliged to makeit accessible to anyone who needs itfor mating with female camels.

m There are ”cow sanctuaries” calledgaushalas. These are usually initiatedby wealthy or religious people but co-funded by donations from the com-mon people. In the gaushalas, peoplefeed and take care of cattle that areno longer wanted by its owners be-cause of old age, sickness, lack ofproductivity or because the ownerscannot afford to maintain their ani-mals esp. during drought. In thesesanctuaries, there are also attempts toconserve and improve local breeds.

m The amr-bakra is a religious act wheresome goat raisers devote male goatsto God by attaching a small ring inone of the goat’s ears. This goat isthen set free in the village and can beused by others for breeding. Every-body will feed this animal and nobodywill dare to harm it.

m The oran is a piece of land belongingto a temple and protected by a lo-cal deity. In orans the cutting oftrees and grass is prohibited butthey are opened up for livestock


20

ground conservation efforts (i.e.pastoralists as guardians of AnGR).

n Ensure that the specific ethnic groupsand societies receive benefit fromsharing the unique genetic resourcesthey have conserved and developed.

n Take a more comprehensive liveli-hood approach towards conserva-tion by instituting policies andprogrammes that secure access topasture and animal health care andcreate a level playing field for themarketing of products of localbreeds.

n Inform pastoralists and breeders or-ganizations about the rights theyhave in countries that are signatoriesto the CBD; build capacities ofNGOs and intermediary organiza-tions for this purpose.

Both presentations also focused onthe status of the endangered livestock/local breeds, the plight of pastoralists,

indigenous knowledge systems andpractices and their critical roles in con-serving domestic livestock diversity –therefore the need to recognize stockraisers’ rights in the same degree thatfarmers’ rights are being given atten-tion. The issue of bio-piracy in AnGRand a further emphasis on habitat de-velopment/pastoral survival that wouldensure the survival of the breeds needmore attention, it was pointed out.

Implications of Biotechnol-ogy and Patenting toAgro-Biodiversity Man-agement

Vitamin A Enriched GeneticallyModified Rice, by CharitoMedina

Vitamin A deficiency is a seriousproblem affecting around three millionpeople, mostly the poor in the develop-ing countries. As such, this should not betreated as a simple vitamin A deficiencyproblem but rather, as part of a morecomplex nutrition problem that is linkedto poverty. While it may be true that thegenetically modified (GM) rice wouldrespond to the vitamin A needs of thegrowing urban poor populations, thereis a need to critically examine other is-sues and concerns not only related toGM rice but to genetically modified or-ganisms (GMOs) in general. Some ofthese include the following:

n GM rice is only a stopgap measure.It not only undermines biodiversitybut could also lead to a trend for”isolated solutions to other nutritionproblems” e.g. that there will soonbe an iron-enriched GM rice to ad-dress iron deficiency.

n Health safety issues. Through the GMrice, vitamin A could be made ”tooabundant” in relation to the other

Factors Responsible forAnGR Erosion

m Replacement/cross-breeding with ex-otic breeds

m Alienation of common property re-sources (breakdown of traditionalmanagement institutions, irrigationprojects, wildlife protection, tourism,etc.)

m Political conflicts, land disputes andwars

m Natural disasters (droughts, floods,cyclones)

m Technological advances and neglectof traditional technologies (replace-ment of draft animals by machines)

m Integration into the global economy;unfavorable marketing environmentsfor local livestock breeds


21

micronutrients in the body. The inter-action of an increased proportion ofvitamin A with the other micronutri-ents is not yet established – the inter-action could have negative or posi-tive health effects. More research isneeded on the health issues.

n Intellectual property rights (IPR). Thecontention here is that living organ-isms must not be patented becausethis will result in the poorer sectors ofsociety not having access to them.Many patents are involved in vitaminA rice development and it is ex-pected that the cost will be muchhigher than for varieties, which donot include patented material. Infor-mation on the patents involved is be-ing gathered. Proponents of the GMrice say that the owners of the pat-ents will not collect royalties from de-veloping countries but only from de-veloped countries. Whether this is a

”public relations gimmick ” or not re-mains to be seen.

n The main motivating factor for”Golden Rice” is the health foodmarket in industrialized countries, butthe proponents always argue withpossible benefits for developingcountries. Vitamin A rice adds to theindustrial public relation efforts ofGMOs image to be life saving in de-veloping countries while the Northernconsumers can afford to reject them.In contrary, developing countriescannot afford the high risk GMOspose to their food security.

n Ecological effects. Not only will GMrice further contribute to the geneticerosion of rice, varieties as experi-enced with the HYVs in the past, butalso to ”genetic pollution” i.e. thegenetic integrity of the species in-volved is destroyed in the process.

Process Patent Number Patent Owner

Agrobacteriumtransformation

WO8603776 Plant GeneticSystems (Aventis)

Erwinia uredovora phytoenedesturase gene

EPO393690 Kirin Brewery

Use of constructs comprisinga carotenoid biosynthesisgene

WO9806862 Calgene(Monsanto)

Endosperm-specific glutelin(Gt1) promoter of the daffodilgene

J6391085 Norinsho

CaMV promoter of the E.uredovora gene

US5106739 Calgene(Monsanto)

AphIV marker gene US5668298 Eli Lily

Daffodil PSY and LYC genes Patent pending University ofFreiburg (PeterBurkhardt)

TABLE 2: Some of the Patents involved in Vitamin A Rice


22

Food security of future generations isat stake.

Instead of GM rice, the proposedsolutions to vitamin A deficiency wereas follow:

n Nutrition education, should continueto emphasise dietary quality and di-versity, nutrition and health, includ-ing micro-nutrient malnutrition

n Awareness and utilization of inexpen-sive natural resources of vitamin Aparticularly green leafy vegetables,which are diverse, abundant, easy togrow, and low cost, thereby promot-ing biodiversity as well.

n Directly addressing poverty allevia-tion so that people can improve theiraccess to natural sources of vitaminA among many other benefits whichVitamin A rice would not be able toprovide.

The same sets of solutions apply tothe urban poor population. Urban con-sumers who ridicule the eating of”greens ” (leaves) because fast foodsare in fashion in this age of moderniza-tion and globalisation need to be re-educated. With respect to providing theurban poor better access to the vitaminA-rich vegetables, the concept of urbangardening needs to be promoted moreintensely. Cultural identity is linked tosuch local foods, as well as urban com-munity development, income genera-tion, and empowerment of women.

UN agencies like FAO, WHO andUNICEF have ample experience. Theypromote such approaches because theycover all nutrition deficiencies; they aresustainable, and therefore cost-effec-tive.

IPR, Farmers’ Rights and Agro-biodiversity

Gene Campaign and BIOTHAI pro-vided the initial workshop inputs on this

controversy-filled topic of intellectualproperty rights (IPR) based on the expe-riences of their own countries, India andThailand, respectively. They describedthe implications for agro-biodiversityconservation of existing internationalagreements that largely define in tradeand economic terms the current mannerand systems by which the rights ofbreeders, farmers and communitieshave to be dealt with. These agree-ments include:

n The Agreement on Trade Related As-pects of Intellectual Property Rights(TRIPS) that allows the patenting ofmicrobiological processes and prod-ucts, and plant varieties. It also fore-sees the adoption of a sui generissystem where each signatory countryis given the flexibility to generate asystem of protection (legislation) onits own, albeit limited by the UPOVthat regulates the patenting ofplants. TRIPS was introduced into theGATT/WTO in 1986, reflecting thegrowing importance of gene technol-ogy and the fact that industrializednations have the technology but notnecessarily the bio-resources. TheCairns Group of some industrializedcountries is pressuring against the suigeneris clause.

n The 1978 (amended in 1991) Con-vention of the International Union forthe Protection of New Varieties ofPlants (UPOV). The UPOV is seen asan inappropriate platform for devel-oping countries for the protection ofplant varieties because countries withlargely industrial, not agriculturaleconomies formulated it. Its primarygoal is protecting the interests ofseed companies who dominate theworld markets. Further, the UPOVdoes not recognize the rights andcontribution of farmers and localcommunities in the protection anddevelopment of plant varieties. Thisputs farmers and communities at risk


23

of losing control over the genetic re-sources around which their farming/agricultural, socio-cultural andknowledge systems revolve – e.g. theright to save, exchange and developseeds.

n The Convention on Biological Diver-sity (CBD) which was initially signedby 150 countries in 1992 during theUnited Nations Conference on Envi-ronment and Development and thencame into effect in December 1993.The CBD, unlike the other treaties,takes a comprehensive (not sectoral)approach to the conservation andsustainable use of biological re-sources – including the equitablesharing of the burden and the ben-efits between (a) developed and de-veloping countries and (b) indig-enous/local communities and the us-ers in the modern sector. As the TRIPSagreement is now under review de-veloping countries should, especiallyafter the failure of the WTO negotia-tions in Seattle, Washington in 1999,lobby for the return of the flexibilityof the sui generis system and insiston linking the TRIPS to the CBD.

The two presenters also shared howtheir respective organizations and gov-ernments are dealing with these agree-ments. This included, more importantly,how they have made deviations andare now lobbying for changes in theagreements for the protection of theirown genetic resources and the rights oftheir constituents and communities. Inboth India and Thailand, legislationdrafts are currently under review for theprotection of plant varieties that takeinto consideration the rights of farmersand communities. These are the PlantVariety and Farmers’ Protection Act inIndia and the Plant Variety ProtectionBill in Thailand. Both drafts are againstpatenting. They support farmer prac-tices to save, exchange and developseeds, farmers being the major seed

producers, both in terms of quantity andquality. Their right to sell seeds must bemaintained. This is also a reason whythe Terminator technology is banned inIndia.

In Africa, Zimbabwe was the firstcountry to develop a sui generis system,which then was adopted as a model bythe Organisation of African Unity(OAU).

The Gene Campaign of India in1998 convened a forum for implement-ing farmers and breeders’ rights in de-veloping countries – the Convention ofFarmers and Breeders (CoFaB), as analternative to UPOV. Gene Campaigninvites all developing countries into thisforum.

In Thailand, efforts were made toovercome a lack of participation preva-lent in other countries: the TRIPS agree-ment, the Biosafety issues and the na-tional policy on GMOs were negotiatedin commissions of several ministries andrepresentatives of many relevant stake-holders. BIOTHAI’s instruments are toprovide wide access to information,farmer demonstrations, NGO cam-paigns, and participation in the nego-tiation of national policies.

The participants were reminded thatall discussions and achievements onIPRs are in vein if trade control tech-niques like the Terminator, or certainsatellite technologies, are applied.

The 1999 UNDP Human Develop-ment Report has commended the GeneCampaign’s Convention of Farmers andBreeders (CoFaB) as an alternative toUPOV. It describes CoFaB as a ”strongand coordinated international proposal[which] offers developing countries an al-ternative to following European legislationby focusing on needs to protect farmers’rights to save and reuse seed and to fulfillthe food and nutritional security goals oftheir people.”


24

The Workshop had two sets ofworking group discussions eachwith three discussion topics – for a

total of six working group outputs. Thefirst set focused on the examination ofincentives, relationships and coopera-tion with regards to enhancing agro-biodiversity conservation and develop-ment. The second set puts emphasis onthe implications for agricultural re-search.

The key topics for the first set of work-ing group discussions were the follow-ing:

l Incentives for farmers to enhanceagro-biodiversity – to protect andvalorise varieties/breeds devel-oped by farmers and farmers’knowledge;

l Formal, informal, private coop-eration to foster agro-biodiversity; and

l Incentives and reasons and insti-tutional cooperation for farmers’/stock keepers’ animal geneticresource management.

Workshop participants selected thetopic/group they would like to join. Indiscussing above topics, each memberof the working groups first rated their in-dividual experiences (as very good,good or bad) with respect to the topicassigned to them and then shared thereasons why it was so. The groups thenanalysed the experiences. The secondround of group discussions focused onintellectual property rights, biotechnol-ogy and bio-piracy. Again, participantschose their own topic and discussedtheir implications for biodiversity man-

agement as well as for agricultural re-search. Each group then formulatedrecommendations.

The meta-card (one-idea-per-card)technique was used in most of thegroup discussions. The highlights ofthese discussions and the recommenda-tions that came out of the workinggroups are presented in the followingsubsections of this report. Annex 2 pro-vides details of the outputs of eachgroup based on the ideas presented inthe cards.

Working Group 1:Incentives for Farmers to enhanceagro-biodiversity – to protect andvalorise varieties developed byfarmers and farmers’ knowledge

Rating of the Experiences

The experiences of the members ofthis working group on engaging farm-ers on biodiversity and related activitieshave ranged from a rating of ”good” to”very good” with no reported bad expe-riences. The high ratings can be attrib-uted to the following:

l The activities addressed farmers’needs– i.e. access to/control overseeds; improvement of traditionalvarieties; good yields without useof chemicals; improved foodsecurity; incomes, marketingpossibilities and lower productioncosts providing some autonomy.

l Seeing a significant number offarmer adapters is a great source

Working Group Results andRecommendations

Working Group Results

25

of encouragement.l Farmers developed the capacities

and interests for engaging inactual breeding and extensionactivities

l Good partnership relationshipsbetween farmers, scientists andNGOs

l High awareness and concern offarmers with regard to GMOs.

The group also identified the follow-ing ”clusters” of favourable condi-tions towards greater farmer interest inbiodiversity conservation and manage-ment:

l Security of land tenure encour-ages the farmer to further invest init leading to biodiversity conser-vation and management.

l Strong partnerships between andamong the farmers, scientists andNGOs characterized by goodaccess to genetic resources,technical support and use ofparticipatory processes andmethodologies.

l Availability of financial resourcesfor participatory process-orientedbiodiversity projects/activities.

l Market development and marketaccess that comprise marketniches for traditional varieties,infrastructure development andequipment complementingbiodiversity activities.

l Sharing of success stories onbiodiversity initiatives to encour-age others to go into similaractivities.

On the conditions that would havenegative effects (constraining fac-tors) on biodiversity conservation andmanagement by farmers, the followingwere noted:

l The market factor, particularlyconsumer attitudes – i.e. prefer-ence for introduced or ”im-proved” varieties or products.

l Policies that are biased againsttraditional varieties. In particular,government’s export-orientationthat leads to agricultural policiesfavouring production of HYVssuch that extension, research andcredit facilities revolve around thehigh-input HYVs. Also, seed poli-cies based on UPOV’91 limits theuse and exchange of traditionalvarieties.

l Lobbying by seed companies thatput further pressure on govern-ment to enforce policies favouringHYVs/improved varieties. Thiscontributes to the loss of geneticmaterials or the farmers’ lack ofaccess to these genetic materialsin the quantity and quality de-sired.

l Research is mostly geared toHYV’s and high yields.

l Lack of access to land or insecu-rity in land tenure discouragesfarmers to further invest in landdevelopment and therefore theyneglect biodiversity.

Working Group 2:Formal, informal, and privatesector cooperation to foster agro-biodiversity

The formal sector in this group dis-cussion referred to the public sector; theinformal sector to the NGOs, SmallFarmer Organisations, etc; and the pri-vate sector as the for-profit organiza-tions/companies.

There were very little experiences withthe private sector in the group; its dis-cussions focused on the formal and in-formal sectors.

Experiences with the FormalSector

Experiences with the formal sectormostly got ”bad” ratings although there


26

were some that were rated as ”good”experiences.

The bad experiences were becauseof indifference and unresponsiveness ofthe formal sector, ignorance of the for-mal sector about the informal sector,visible mistrust between formal and in-formal sectors, and no proper mecha-nisms for partnership.

The positive experience relates to thepublic sector being able to develop na-tional and regional programs.

Experiences with theInformal Sector

Experiences with the informal sectorgenerally got ”good” ratings althoughthere were a few ”bad” ratings.

The good experiences related to:flexibility and use of participatory meth-ods in genetic resources and breedingwork; visible impact of work as seen inthe establishment of community genebanks; open sharing of information andexchange of experiences; dynamic ap-proach to education and training withfarmers; revitalization of local/indig-enous knowledge; intensive coopera-tion between NGOs, SFOs, etc. due tocommon interest in agro-biodiversity;and access to local/foreign expertiseand funds from international NGOsfrom the West.

The bad ratings were with respect toindividualistic attitudes e.g. amongplant breeders resulting in a lack of co-operation, as well as ”Bureaucrazy” insome NGOs.

Recommendations

The recommendations formulatedare based on the CGIAR system’s goalsof poverty alleviation, food security andenvironmental sustainability. Specifi-cally, the recommendations focused onthe research agenda, access to CGIAR

resources, and institutional transforma-tion and governance.

The Research Agenda should:

l Focus on ”traditional” crops.l Focus on crops needed rather by

small farmers than by commercialagriculture.

l Consult with farming communitiesto identify their needs.

l Further develop participatorymethods and disseminate themthrough national and interna-tional research systems.

l Integrate the research agendawith respect to biodiversity andinto the wider developmentagenda.

l Delete the GMOs from its ap-proach to environmentalsustainability.

Resource Access and Partnerships

l There should be no researchpartnership with the CGIAR if itpursues the patenting policy.

l There should be no researchcollaboration with the publicsector without proper evaluationand disclosure of the impact ofthe research. The cooperationagreement should be madetransparent and monitored.

l Specific policies should be inplace for contractual relationshipsand these should be monitored.

Institutional Transformation and Gover-nance, incl. Access to Germplasm

l CGIAR governance should bemade more representative – withmore participation from the Southand with greater gender represen-tation.

l The CGIAR should, in its policy onaccess to germplasm collection,safeguard the rights and interestsof the South and the small farm-ers.


27

Working Group 3:Incentives for and InstitutionalCooperation on Farmers’/StockKeepers’ Animal Genetic ResourceManagement

Incentives for engaging in Ani-mal Genetic Resources conser-vation and management:

The group has identified four cat-egories of incentives for stock keepersto be engaged in animal genetic re-source management. These are (i) eco-logical, (ii) animal qualities, (iii) socio-cultural, and (iv) economic.

Regarding ecological aspects, stockkeepers engage in animal genetic re-sources management activities becausethey contribute to the sustainability ofpasturelands. Grazing is in some placesthe only possible land use strategy.Small species may be favoured in hillyareas since they cause less erosion.Specific browsing habits are associatedwith certain animal species. Some arebetter adapted to the conditions inwildlife conservation areas.

On animal qualities, stock keepersare encouraged to engage in AnGRmanagement of local/indigenous spe-cies because of their adaptability to thelocal environment, their robustness, re-sistance to disease, as well as their lowfeed and water requirements.

With respect to the socio-cultural as-pects, the incentives for keeping localAnGR (other than for the important butoften neglected aesthetical and senti-mental reasons) include the social andcultural importance attached to theseanimals being part of the communitiesindigenous knowledge systems and theadded social status that comes withpreserving these stocks.

Regarding economic incentives, amajor reason for farmers/stock keepers

to go into AnGR conservation and man-agement is because the animals servemultiple purposes –power for ploughingand pulling carts), milk and meat pro-duction and the use of their dung formanure. Moreover, animals often serveas a form of a ”bank” or investmentand in some cases rare breeds are usedfor tourism purposes. Prices are oftengood for traditional breeds.

Challenges in AnGRmanagement

The problems and challenges thathave to be faced in AnGR managementinclude:

l The low status accorded to pasto-ralism especially because agricul-tural policies favour ”improved”breeds and cash crops;pastoralists often suffer from abad environmental reputation.

l The productivity paradigm: Tradi-tional breeds are often low milkproducers; however, this view ofproductivity is narrow, as rarebreeds have many other economi-cally relevant qualities (see under”incentives”)

l Very little information about thestock keepers and their activities isavailable; they live in complexsystems, which are not readilyquantifiable.

l The absence of institutional coop-eration and markets for tradi-tional breeds;

l Lack of awareness of bio-piracy ofAnGR; and

l Environmental degradation result-ing to a lack of pastureland.

Recommendations

More awareness is needed on thecontribution of pastoralists to AnimalGenetic Resources Management. An in-formation system is needed that linkspastoralists and organizations.


28

Pastoralists should be involved in policydecisions, so that agricultural policiesare made in favour of pastoralists. Forexample, subsidies for ”improved”breeds should be withdrawn, andpastoralists involved in land use plan-ning.

Markets for traditional breed prod-ucts (e.g. camel milk) should be devel-oped; Industry sponsoring could belooked for.

Selection criteria should include Ani-mal Genetic Resources conservation as-pects.

The productivity paradigm should berevised. More research on rare breedqualities is needed.

National laws should be screenedwhether they support or suppress ani-mal biodiversity. Informal law shouldbe documented and respected. Also,awareness of bio-piracy should be in-creased and bio-piracy of Animal Ge-netic Resources monitored.

Not more organizations are needed,but more cooperation between them isneeded. Common objectives are an es-sential precondition for their coopera-tion. Especially, multilateral and inter-national organizations should cooper-ate on Animal Genetic Resources Man-agement.

A lot can be learned from the devel-opment of Plant Genetic Resources(PGR) management over the last de-cade. Therefore, more interaction be-tween Animal Genetic Resources (AnGR)and Plant GR organizations is needed.

Working Group 4:IPR and Agricultural Research

A Case Against Patenting

The discussions of the WorkingGroup on IPR showed the inter-related-ness of IPR, GMOs and bio-piracy inagricultural research in that thesefavour the transnational companiesrather than the farmers/stock keepersand the agenda of poverty alleviationand food security. The group sees IPR asa threat to biodiversity because it wouldcurtail the exchange and saving ofgermplasm that is a common practiceamong farmers/stock keepers. There isrecognition of the need to stop bio-pi-racy and ensure that germplasm ex-changes and ”bio-prospecting” work inthe interest of the public good. How-ever, the proposed solution that is thepatenting of genetic resources/lifeforms as a safeguard from bio-piracy iscontrary to the rights of farmers/stockkeepers. By patenting genetic resourceslike seeds, farmers are more likely tolose their freedom to save, exchangeand develop seeds, which is essential tofood security of farming communities.This becomes more worrisome becausethe position of the CGIAR and its mem-ber international research centres onpatents is not clear – that is, there islittle accountability and transparency inthe CGIAR on its IPR policy. The IPRWorking Group reached the followingconclusions:

l That patents are threats tobiodiversity and are disincentivesto agricultural research.

l That GMOs are not the answer tofood security problems of thepoor, as these do not necessarilyincrease productivity and poorpeople’s access to food.

l That even the sui generis rights asapplied to plant variety protection(PVP) will hardly foster seed ex-


29

change because of attempts todelete such clauses from the TRIPSagreement.

Recommendations

The group recommends to agricul-tural research the following:

l That agricultural research shouldtake positions in favour of thefarmers and stock keepers inorder to protect their rights e.g. tosave and exchange seeds andanimal genetic resources.

l Patents should not apply to lifeforms.

l The CGIAR should not engage inpatenting, not even in defensivepatenting. Other steps should besought to show evidence of priorart.

l The TRIPS agreement should bereconciled with the CBD (Conven-tion on Biodiversity) – includingthe expansion of ”geographicalindication” (i.e. the communityfrom which a genetic resourceoriginates has a right to thatgenetic resource) to cover agricul-tural products.

l That agricultural research organi-zations take action against bio-piracy.

Working Group 5:Biotechnology

The Working Group focused its dis-cussions on the implications of GMOsfor the rural areas and farming commu-nities. Likewise, the group looked at ag-ricultural research as supposedly con-tributing to poverty alleviation. That is,agricultural research must work for thegood of poor rural communities andnot to unnecessarily put them at risk.GMOs, however, are high-risk technolo-gies, and therefore:

l Should CGIAR research on GMOsadhere to the highest possiblestandard of safety; and

l Should the CGIAR focus its genetechnology research on assess-ment of both risk and need –socio-economic impact should beassessed prior to going intoresearch on the technology itself.

Recommendations

The working group takes the positionthat laboratory research on biotechnol-ogy may be acceptable provided thatthe following demands are met:

l That the biotechnology researchbudget will be re-oriented tobiosafety and significantly in-crease research on safety issues.

l That a comprehensive safetyframework is developed andcomprehensive socio-economicimpact assessments made.

l That the CGIAR plays an impor-tant role in establishing appropri-ate scientific protocols for theassessment of biotechnologystandards, and in strengtheningthe inadequate and incompleteMontreal protocol.

l That there is significant publicparticipation in the discussion ofrisks and in the monitoring ofbiotechnology activities.

Working Group 6:Bio-piracy

Understanding Bio-piracy andits Impact

The group noted that traditionallythe free exchange of genetic resources isallowed as long as they are used for the”public good”. This is usually the typeof exchange that happens at the com-munity level when farmers trade or


30

share seeds with each other. In its earlierdefinition therefore, when the exchangeof germplasm ceases to be for the pub-lic good bio-piracy is committed. How-ever, now that genetic resources havebecome an important ”economic” re-source that is patented and privatised,bio-piracy has come to mean the unau-thorized use of genetic resources with-out prior informed consent (PIC) andmaterial transfer agreement (MTA).

Bio-piracy is more clearly indicatedin plant genetic resources (PGR) than inanimal genetic resources (AnGR). Nev-ertheless, there are reported cases ofbio-piracy in AnGR e.g. of the Ongolecattle being taken from India for breed-ing programs without proper compen-sation. Another case involves the cross-ing of cattle from Asia with Germanbreeds. Although this experimentationhas failed, it could have geneticallypolluted the native breed. It was noted,that there are cases where traditional”bio-piracy” helped to enrich bio-diver-sity – for example the ”cattle raids” inKenya. However, such traditional bio-pi-racy does not involve patenting.

The greatest impact of bio-piracy isits effects on the rights of farmers andcommunities – on the economy and onthe further utilization of indigenousknowledge (IK). Classic examples of thenegative economic effects of bio-piracyare the patenting in the US of the Paki-stani Basmati that resulted to exportmarket losses and consequently, theloss of income for the farmers. Royaltiesto the US patent holder are due if In-dian or Pakistani Basmati rice is im-ported in the US.

In terms of the effect of bio-piracyon Indigenous Knowledge, an exampleis the US patent on turmeric as awound-healing agent. India successfullychallenged this patent by showing ”evi-dence of prior art” that the product wasnot a novelty. Bio-piracy implies piracy

of knowledge and its two potentialnegative impacts on IK are as follow:

l The possible economic benefits ofsales in those countries werepatents are granted shift from thecommunity who conserves andowns the knowledge to the patentholders, mostly companies. Bio-piracy denies the credit thatshould go to Indigenous Knowl-edge.

Recommendations

To control bio-piracy, the workinggroup suggested the following strate-gies at the international, national andlocal levels.

At the international level:The acceptance of and compliance

with the Convention on Biodiversity(CBD) particularly regarding the priorinformed consent (PIC) and materialtransfer agreements (MTA) in order toensure that communities share the ben-efits of the germplasm transfer.

At the national level:There is a need to establish and en-

force legislation that looks into theproblems of bio-piracy and solvesthem. This could be a legislation thattreats ”oral knowledge” at par withpublished documentation as evidenceto show ”prior art” in challenging pat-ents made, for example, on IK.

Related issues/recommendations:

l How does one prove ”oralknowledge to be documentedknowledge”?An example to look into isCanada where oral evidenceingrained in tradition (e.g.through songs and dances) istaken seriously in courts. Althougha long and painful process ofproving prior art, it means thatthere is room for ”customary


31

laws” being acceptable evidenceof prior art without necessarilycoming up with written documen-tation.

l National laws cover patents (notinternational laws), which makes itdifficult to challenge patentsgranted in another country. Thereis need to integrate into the TRIPSagreement an internationalcontext of bio-piracy.

l Bio-piracy should be treated as acriminal offence and with stiffpenalties. The problem is thatmany of the bio-piracy activitiesare carried out through the scien-tific research networks – there is a


need for guidelines to avoid bio-piracy through scientific coopera-tion.

l Forgeries of written documenta-tion have to be watched out for inestablishing prior art.

At the local level:Awareness-building activities and

sustained vigilance at the level of com-munities, local officials and local NGOsare simple but effective local actions forstopping bio-piracy. For example, sim-ply making people understand that thetaking out of materials by tourists mayconstitute bio-piracy is already one im-portant step toward minimizing bio-pi-racy.

32

This section provides the highlightsof the closing remarks delivered by PatMooney of the Rural AdvancementFoundation International (RAFI). In hisremarks, Pat prepared participants forthe following workshop2 where NGOsand small farmers’ organizationselaborate positions for the GlobalForum on Agricultural Research inDresden. Pat described that forthcom-ing GFAR meeting as the coming to-gether of four different actors with noclear purpose or agenda. These differ-ent actors, however, recognize the needto come together to sort things out – toshow some signs of collective purposeor dialogue to put direction to globalagricultural research Pat then wentfurther to describe in his own terms thestate of mind of these different actors.

The four actors referred to are thepublic institutions, the private sector, thedonor governments and civil societyorganizations. The public institutionscome as a highly confused, emotionallydistraught, economically damagedgroups of people with no clear sense ofwhere they want to go. The privatesector is coming to the GFAR meetingbecause they were told to do so. Theyhave very little interest in public re-search i.e. they do not really care aboutpublic research. The donor govern-ments come to the meeting to assess ifinternational public research continuesto be viable - otherwise, to just put theirmoney elsewhere. Since the 1980ies,

Closing Remarks

there has been a notable drop in publicresearch funding and this trend will notbe reversed unless the Dresden meetingconvinces governments why they needto continue to support public agricul-tural research. Civil society, unlike thethree other actors, is the only groupcoming to the GFAR meeting with aclear sense of identity and of what theywant to achieve i.e. to put the smallfarmers in the centre of agriculturalresearch.

For now, the name of the game ininternational agricultural research isbiotechnology. There is great fascina-tion among the CGIAR researchers withgenetic engineering and it would bedifficult for them, being scientists, tomove away from it unless they arecontinually challenged – as is nowbeing done by civil society organiza-tions. This is a tall order for civil societybecause the CGIAR puts insignificantattention to bio-piracy and violationson the rights of farming communities inthe pursuit of biotechnology – arguingthat such incidents are only isolatedand negligible cases in comparison tothe benefits that would be derived. Forexample, the CGIAR does not talk muchabout bio-piracy; from its publicationsone could conclude that it is happeningonly in Australia and not in the entireworld. Further, with respect to IPR viola-tions committed against developingnations, not once in the history of theCGIAR has it fought in the courts for the”good of public interest” and will notbe about to do it now.

Civil society would have to transformGFAR into a genuine negotiating venue;a genuine dialogue on political andagricultural issues confronting agricul-

2 German NGO Forum on Environment & Develop-ment: FOOD FOR ALL – Farmers First in Research.International Workshop of Non-Government andSmall Farmer Organisations on Research for PovertyAlleviation. Dresden, Germany, 19-20 May 2000, re-port available at:http://www.GFAR2000-NGOactivities.de

Closing Remarks

33

tural research. It is not just a matter ofscreaming out the issues but of tactfullybut sharply conveying the messages. Acritical discussion point for civil societytherefore is to determine if the GFAR issomething for it to pursue or to just let itdie by itself. This may also depend onhow seriously the private sector takesthe GFAR. Many governments seem tobelieve that the real world is identicalwith the corporations, so that theysometimes set priorities for agriculturalresearch as if the private sector hasdictated them. Few corporations par-ticipate in such discussions. But to theextent that the private sector takes theGFAR seriously, the question to ask is:Would civil society be prepared tocollaborate work with private corpora-tions?

The IPR issue makes the situationpainfully sharp. Public researchorganisations should not engage inpatenting, and there are many reasonsfor it. One is the ”Don Quichote rea-son”: There is no way to fight for thepublic interest by winning patents. Patconcluded with a story about DanielWebster and the devil:

A farmer who is about to lose hisland gives up his soul to the devil inreturn for his land. He then goes to thelawyer Daniel Webster to fight to getback his soul. The lawyer wins back thefarmer’s soul, but the legal fees aresuch that the farmer loses his land.

Closing Remarks

35

Annex 1

Selected Presentations


36

Experiences of SOS-Sahel in On-Farm Management ofGenetic Resources in Ethiopia

By Eyasu Elias

Introduction and Background

SOS-Sahel and its Programme of Work

SOS-Sahel is a British NGO carrying out a programme of site-specific projects indryland areas of sub-Saharan Africa. It supports community actions and initiativesthat focus on the management and conservation of natural resources and increasingfood production by subsistence farmers. SOS-Sahel has been working in Africa since1985 and currently operates in Sudan, Mali, Kenya Eritrea and Ethiopia.

In Ethiopia, SOS-Sahel works with subsistence farmers in areas that face problemsof land degradation and declining food security since 1989. Currently there are twointegrated rural development projects that are implemented by the organization inareas that face severe environmental degradation and food insecurity. These are theKoisha Rural Development Project in the enset/root crop-based system of Wollaita(southern Ethiopia) and the Meket Development Project in low potential cereal systemof northern Ethiopia. The primary focus of SOS-Sahel’s development programmes isto assist rural communities in finding sustainable ways to improve their livelihoods.The major sectoral focus of intervention for SOS-Sahel is the development of naturalresource management (soils, forestry and rangelands) as a primary means to tacklefood insecurity. Recently, SOS-Sahel also begun to launch a collaborative actionprogramme of forest management and conservation in the semi-arid rangelands ofBorena plateau in southern Ethiopia (see below).

Ethiopia in BriefAgriculture has always remained to be the corner stone of the Ethiopian economy.

Numerous studies indicate that Ethiopia is endowed with various natural resourcesamong which 60% of the total landmass is potentially arable. However, despite thenation’s rich resources agricultural production has not kept pace with the food needsof its fast growing human population. Rural poverty, famine and food insecurity aretherefore, major policy concerns at national level. The underlying causes for the dis-appointing performance of the agricultural sector include highly variable climaticcondition, low level of agricultural technology, land degradation due to deforestationand erosion among other factors.

Owing to the diverse agro-climatic and terrain conditions Ethiopia possesses oneof the largest and most diverse genetic resources in the world (Abebe, 2000; Regassa,1996). The unique topographical features and climatic variations have made thecountry home to numerous wild life and plant species. According to available data247 mammal, 845 bird, 178 reptile and 54 animal species are identified within thecountry some of which are endemic to Ethiopia. Crop plants such as coffee, teff, andmany root crops are known to have originated in Ethiopia. Even crops that were origi-nally domesticated elsewhere exhibit immense variation in a number of adaptivetraits (Abebe 1999).


37

Agro-biodiversity as a Means forFood Security for Subsistence Farmers

In agriculture, genetic diversity in crops is critical for promoting stabilized produc-tion and for minimizing risks arising due to unpredictable environmental changes.Traditional farmers of low input agriculture have long favoured diversity on theirfarms because it balances yield variations through the maintenance of wide range ofdiversity within and among crops. That is to say, failure of a particular crop or vari-ety is always compensated for by yield of other crops or varieties as a source of foodor income. For this reason, subsistence farmers follow complex and diverse croppingpatterns, which involve a huge mixture of cereals, root crops, vegetables, and le-gumes (pulses). In many parts of Ethiopia, farmers plant mixtures of cereals and rootcrops, fruits and vegetables, wheat and barley, etc. This type of multiple cropping onthe small farms accounts for the bulk of food production in Ethiopia. The genetic po-tential of crop varieties in resisting stress, pests and diseases as well as qualities suchas palatability and storability are well defined by farming communities.

Traditional varieties are locally adapted and therefore, of greater value to farmersthan modern varieties. Mixtures of locally adapted traditional crops and varietiesgive farmers some insurance against pest and disease attack in a very variable envi-ronmental condition. They provide farmers with a range of outputs, and combinedyields are often greater than mono-crops and erosion is reduced by a greater groundcover given by the mixture (Pretty, 1996). Especially in stress prone or marginal areasthe landraces show greater potential, are more stable and provide more reliablesource planting material (Tesfaye, 1996).

However, the broad range of genetic diversity existing in Ethiopia in general ispresently subject to serious genetic erosion and irreversible losses. This threat ofdepletion of potentially useful genetic diversity is particularly serious in the SOS-Sahelproject areas. The contributing factors for erosion of bio-diversity are many and di-verse but the two major causes in crop diversity are discussed below.

The Decline of Diversity underModernisation of Agriculture

Modernization brought with it the steady decline of biological diversity (Pretty,1996) as it causes replacement of indigenous landraces1 or local varieties by new im-proved crop varieties. In many countries, the spread of monoculture has drasticallysqueezed out many native landraces (Regassa, 1996). In pursuit of increased agricul-tural production in order to meet the needs of growing population, governments haveintervened to transform traditional agricultural systems. In this process modern variet-ies of crops have been spread together with the associated packages of fertilizer (atsubsidized prices), pesticide and credit.

In some cases, there have been mechanisms to prevent the growing of traditionalcrop varieties. For example, in Wollaita, southern Ethiopia, farmers lost source ofsubsistence due to introduction of modern varieties and fertilizer by a World Bankfunded development project (1970-1980). Farmers said ‘the project brought fertilizer

1 These are crops and crop varieties that are adapted to the local conditions and resistant to drought, pests and diseases.


38

and hybrid seed and famine with them’. Before the project, farmers used to take pre-cautions against famine by planting sufficient drought resistant local varieties ofmaize and food security crops such as enset (Enset ventricosum or otherwise calledMusa ensete), sweet potato, taro and yam.

The World Bank funded development project (called Wollaita Agricultural Devel-opment Unit, WADU) discouraged production of subsistence traditional crops as theywere thought to be poor in nutrition, and less productive and less responsive to fertil-izer application. The project thus, distributed improved varieties of maize and othercereals allied with fertilizer with aim of achieving a rapid increase in food production.In this process traditional crop varieties of maize were replaced by improved varietiessince improved seed was not sold for cash, but a unit of improved seed was distrib-uted in exchange for the same unit of a local seed. Also, the rapid expansion of ce-real cultivation has endangered subsistence root crops such as sweet potato, taro,yam, etc. that have actual significance for food security. Farmers prefer to add newvarieties into their existing mix of landraces, but the agricultural modernizationfavoured/encouraged uniformity and substitution of land races by modern varieties.This agricultural uniformity left fields vulnerable to pest and disease attacks anddrought. Consequently, there has been a chronic food crisis and series of famines oc-curred in 1984, 1988, 1991 and 1994, which brought massive relief operation by thegovernmental and the non-governmental organizations.

Drought and Famine

In north-central highlands including Wollo where SOS Sahel operates, the faminethat occurred during the 1980s was the major event that seriously threatenedEthiopia’s crop genetic resources. Many farmers in the project areas suffered fromfood shortage and farm production were barely adequate to satisfy food needs.Thus, farmers were often unable to retain seeds for the next planting season. Recur-rent drought over the past years also led to complete crop failure and subsequent dis-appearance of local varieties that the farmers maintained through generations. Inmany instances food grain coming through relief agencies became the only source ofseed for planting as farmers ate up their own seeds. This often resulted in massivedisplacement of native varieties of maize, sorghum and by exotic seeds provided byrelief agencies in the form of food grains. The poorly adapted exotic varieties re-quired fertilizer, water, herbicides and pesticides and therefore, failed to grow underadverse climatic conditions.

SOS-Sahel’s Experience In On-Farm Bio-DiversityConservation

Though the conservation of bio-diversity is not the main aim of SOS-Sahel’sprogramme of work, a variety of land races have benefited from its rural develop-ment projects in different parts of the country. Farmer-based multiplication and distri-bution of seeds and planting materials is an integral part of SOS-Sahel’s rural devel-opment programmes. The agency encourages continued cultivation of root cropsthat are threatened with extinction. One way to do this is to encourage local farmersto exchange seeds between themselves and grow them for their potential economic,medicinal, social and cultural values.


39

Under conditions of intermittent drought stress, combined with pest infestation anddeclining soil fertility, access to locally adapted seed provides reliable plating mate-rial, but many poor households do not have locally appropriate varieties in sufficientquantities. Similarly there are few crops that could help bridge seasonal food deficitsfor poorer households. Following the identification of lack of planting materials, asan important constraint on production, seed/planting material, multiplication anddistribution has become an important component of field intervention for SOS-Sahel.This is to encourage continued cultivation of varieties of existing crops in the systemwhere the crops have evolved and thereby promote crop diversification. It is believedthat this will allow increased resilience of households to production crisis and improvetheir ability to meet immediate food needs.

Method of Seed Selection, Multiplication and Distribution

Collection of local planting materials begins with socio-logical survey of the com-munity land area in consultation and collaboration with farmers. Extension workers ofthe woreda office of agriculture and researchers from the regional research centres ofEARO are involved in the survey and monitoring exercises. A number of crops areconsidered for multiplication and distribution of planting materials. These includemaize and sorghum, sweet potato, field pea and cotton. Crop varieties that werefound to be suitable in terms of growth performance and yield are selected/screenedby farmers. Some of the criteria used in selecting crop varieties included early matu-rity, seed size, seed colour, and resistance to disease, taste and yield.

The selected/screened planting materials are purchased from local markets.These are planted and multiplied on selected farmers’ plots established for adaptiveon-farm trials under a scheme called participatory on-farm trials (POFTs). There isalso a central nursery of the project established for seed multiplication and on stationagronomic trials. The planting materials produced on farmers’ plots are bought bythe project at market price for later redistribution to other farmers on credit basis. Re-distributed is done to other farmers in the same locality to avoid transportation andother logistical problems. Besides financial profit obtained from selling seed/plant-ing materials, farmers who participate in seed multiplication benefit through keepingenough seed stock for planting on their own fields.

Selection of Beneficiaries

Community development committee (composed of farmers, project staff andworeda office of agriculture staff) conducts the need assessment and beneficiary iden-tification. In many cases households most needed seed and therefore, those whocould make the most productive use of it were selected. These are farmers who hadtheir land ploughed and ready for sowing, but who had neither seed, nor moneyavailable to buy it. A collective beneficiary ranking procedure (sort of wealth rankingexercise) was followed to identify needy farmers; poor and very poor groups are tar-geted. Ranking was discussed in open community meetings regarding eligibility ofhouseholds for seed credit. Depending on the farm size, each household selected re-ceives 5-25 kg of seed, which enables farmers to plant about a quarter of a hectare(average land holding varies between 0.5-1 hectare). In the case of sweet potatobundles of planting materials enough to plant a plot are provided. The committee


40

also manages the credit repayment and selects new families who they think need toreceive seed/planting material.

The committee is also responsible for distribution, collection, storing and redistri-bution of seed. The beneficiaries of seed credit or planting material sign an agree-ment with SOS-Sahel for repayment in kind for onward distribution to other farmers inthe following season. The farmers themselves rejected repayment in cash. The sameamount (about 25 kg seed) is repaid after harvest, which is then stored by the projectfor distribution to other farmers in the locality. The community development commit-tee ensures repayment of the seed so that other farmers can also benefit from theseed credit. Farmers who are known to have suffered crop failure are exempted fromseed repayment.

Incentives to Farmers and Institutional Linkage

There is no reward strategy for farmers growing and utilizing local varieties basedon yield differentials. Farmers themselves feel that there are advantages in producingtraditional crops for their own subsistence. However, farmers are provided with smallfarm tools and equipment to encourage management and conservation of soil, whichindirectly support continued cultivation of indigenous crops. In most cases, farmers inthe project areas lack farm tools to carry out various agricultural activities. Therefore,the project provides a loan-based material support to encourage improved manage-ment of natural resources including traditional crops. Farm tools (pick axes, flat hoes,shovels and three-finger hoes) are given on subsidized prices since nearly all house-holds could not afford the full price of the required farm tools. SOS-Sahel has alsoinitiated a blacksmith support programme to address the tool-related constraints.This is aimed at enhancing local production and supply of improved farm tools at af-fordable prices. Targeted blacksmiths received tool kits at subsidized prices to be re-paid over five years. They also received training for the production of improved farmtools.

SOS-Sahel works in close collaboration with the community and relevant govern-mental departments enhancing their capacities to ensure the technical and manage-ment support after termination of the project. The project particularly works closelywith the Bio-diversity Institute (BDI), the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization(EARO) and the ministry of agriculture at various levels (regional, zonal and woredaoffice). EARO and BDI co-operate in provision of technical expertise, assistance in for-mulating environmental guidelines for appropriate conservation measures.

The Need for Establishment of Community Seed Bank

The number of farmers that have been included in this programmed in two projectsites reached 12,000. The major lesson learned is that seed multiplication anddistribution is a complex process that requires a long-term presence to ensuresustainability of community-based genetic resource conservation. In particular, orga-nizational problems such as structure, sources of seed and credit terms need to beclarified (Pratten, 1997). In view of this, the establishment of community seed banks isan important strategy to facilitate seed supply among households including exchangeof seeds through local markets to achieve the objective of in-situ conservation. Themajor objective here is to increase the number of options in using wide crop diversity


41

and minimize vulnerability to seed shortage, famine and crop genetic erosion. Therehave been discussions with farmers and local offices of agriculture to establish com-munity seed banks, which would manage seed credit on a sustainable basis.

References

Abebe Demisse, 2000. Current status of biodiversity conservation in Ethiopia, Paperpresented on International conference on a biodiversity challenge for Ethiopia(February 2-4, 2000, Addis Ababa.

Abebe Demisse, 1999. In situ conservation: the Ethiopian experience. ILEIA newslet-ter for low external input and sustainable agriculture, Vol. 15, No. 3.

David Pratten, 1997. Local institutional development and relief in Ethiopia: A kire-based seed distribution programme in North Wollo.

Pretty N. Jules, 1995. Regenerating Agriculture. Policies practice for sustainabilityand self-reliance. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London.

Regassa Feyissa, 1996. Agro-biodiversity: A base for food security and sustainableagriculture.

Tesfaye Tessema, 1996. Low agricultural inputs: Opportunities for farmer-based ap-proach to land race conservation, enhancement and utilization. Paper presentedon a CRDA workshop on agricultural extension, Addis Ababa.


42

Community Based Plant Genetic Resources Conservationand Development — The SEARICE Experience for BUCAP

by Wilhelmina R. Pelegrina

Introduction

SEARICE (Southeast Asia Regional Institute for Community Education) has been in-volved with on-farm plant genetic resources conservation and development work1989. These ten years of work is replete with lessons and new challenges, which thispaper and this presentation will fail to capture. The best way we can look at some ofthe experiences of SEARICE is by looking at one of its program on community basedPGR conservation and development. The program is called BUCAP.

The Biodiversity Use and Conservation Asia Program (BUCAP) has twin objectivesof strengthening farmers’ systems in PGR conservation and development while im-proving and increasing agro-biodiversity. The third objective is an institutional experi-ment, which was made possible because of the long-standing relationship betweenSEARICE and the Development Fund of Norway (Utvikslingfondet). The twoorganisations agreed to venture into a new form of partnership veering away from thetraditional donor-recipient relationship. This time, the Development Fund of Norwaywill take a more active role in policy advocacy. The objective is to bring the experi-ences of BUCAP in community based plant genetic resources conservation and devel-opment to the wider Norwegian public and to address key policy issues relating toBUCAP.

Country Selection

Seven countries were visited, key contacts were tapped and the potentials,strengths, weaknesses and opportunities present in each country were assessed. Fi-nally three countries were selected: Lao PDR, Bhutan and Vietnam.

The decision for the selection was partly based on ecosystems. Vietnam was se-lected because it exemplifies the intensive irrigated rice system where genetic erosionis well pronounced and where institutional science strongly dominates the develop-ment of plant genetic resources. However, the farmers? High demand for more andnewer varieties to respond to many and fast changing biotic and abiotic stresses isnot being met by institutional sources. It is also not likely that this demand will be metin the future. The need to strengthen the role of farmers as active partners in plantbreeding is very high.

Lao PDR was selected because it exemplifies a country undergoing agriculturaltransition from subsistence economy to intensive agriculture. The challenges of arrest-ing genetic erosion and maintaining farmer science while undergoing transition weresome of the prime reasons for selection. Bhutan was selected because of its uniqueecosystem. The country is still in subsistence agriculture where altitude and seasonplays defining roles in plant genetic resources conservation and development. The


43

challenge is how to make the system productive while maintaining the prime role offarmers in crop development and conservation.

However, the identification of institutional partners rather than on which countryneeded BUCAP was the most decisive factor of all, which led to the selection of thesethree countries. In terms of crops, eco-systems and socio-cultural realities, all the sur-veyed countries were equally interesting. It was therefore difficult for these factors tobe the sole basis for selection. The decision cannot be based on need alone. BUCAPis not a charity project but a research and development project, which in a broadersense is about developing a research and development model on PGR managementthat is aimed at influencing development policies at all levels; and aimed at beingduplicated in other communities and/or countries. The need for partners with thehighest potential to successfully implement a participatory, empowering and techni-cally sound project, and a country that provides the space to implement such aproject are therefore imperative.

Selection of Country Partners

This was the most decisive and the most difficult part of the preparatory phase. Thecountry partners can make or break a project. First, we looked for partners that havethe commitment and capacity (at least a high potential) for implementing technicallysolid projects. At the same time, we also looked for partners that are committed andhave the capacity (and potential) to implement projects that empowers the poor andthe powerless. These kinds of partners are difficult to find.

We also took a difficult path of selection that did not presume that NGOs (althoughwe were biased for NGOs) are the best partners for BUCAP. Objectively, we assessedNGOs and governmental/formal institutions based on their technical capacities andcommitments. Most of all, we also assessed both sectors on their capacity to imple-ment participatory and empowering research and development project.

Not satisfied with this, we tried to develop institutional arrangements for all cooper-ating local partners that will minimize problems and strengthen their positive aspects.For Vietnam and Laos, we were able to combine and join the best possible combina-tion of NGO-GO and International Organizations.

In Laos, Oxfam Solidarity (Belgium) in Laos is the country partner. The National IPMProgram of the Agriculture and Extension Agency of the Department of Agricultureand Extension is the main counterpart along with the National Agricultural ResearchCentre and the secondary agricultural schools in Luang Prabang and Champassakwith assistance from CIDSE-Lao. BUCAP will be implemented in the provinces ofSavanakhet, Champassak, Vientiane, Luang Prabang and Vientiane municipality.

In Vietnam, the country partner is the Plant Protection Department (PPD) and thePlant Protection Sub department (PPSD). The National IPM Program and the FAO-IPMProgram in Vietnam and CIDSE-Vietnam shall provide technical advice and financialoversight. BUCAP will be implemented in five provinces (Quang Nam, Hue, Hoa Binh,Bac Kanh, Ha Noi) in central and North Vietnam. In each of the provinces, at least twovillages with existing IPM clubs (farmer clubs) were selected for initial project imple-mentation.

In Bhutan the project is under the National Agro-biodiversity Program in coordina-


44

tion with the RRNRC (Renewable Natural Resources Research Centre) of Bajo andTashigang are the partners of BUCAP. The best institutional arrangement for Bhutanwill still have to be discovered and developed during the course of the project imple-mentation. The project will be implemented in a watershed in Wonghdiprodang andTashigang.

The other projects of SEARICE and those it helped set-up for the purpose of on-farmPGR conservation and development are directly implemented by NGOs, except forthe South Vietnam project, which is with the Farming Systems Research and Develop-ment Institute of Cantho University. BUCAP will provide a new experience for SEARICEin terms of looking at possible institutional set-up, which brings in the different stake-holders. We have yet to see if the current set-up of BUCAP will work. At present, we al-ready have interesting insights into the dynamics and politics of bringing in the differ-ent stakeholders in one program.

The country partners and counterparts for BUCAP also differ from previous SEARICEprojects in terms of the coverage of their work. With CBDC and CONSERVE, SEARICEconcentrated its efforts on one contiguous area of a province or in one province. Thework and contact is thus limited at the provincial level. The success of this set-up gaveus the possibility and the drive to take it one step higher - at the national level. Thus,for BUCAP we have national government agencies as partners and its implementationwill be in two to five provinces. We have up-scaled the level of implementation.

As mentioned earlier, it was not easy to achieve this level of scale. There were a lotof difficulties and errors, which we made. There were cases of bad contacts and thedifficulty for our part to drop the contact without incurring the ire of the organizationand the people whom we have established good working and personal relationshipswith. There were also cases of misunderstanding and a lot of doubts on whether wecan take this at the national level. We brought in personalities who have doubts aboutBUCAP and who are only interested in project funds, which almost split our efforts. Wehad to bring in these people because they are stakeholders and there is simply noway to avoid them. These experiences gave us an important lesson, that there canonly be one centre. Only one institution that we can call a national partner will see theproject through including the necessary negotiations.

Participatory Process of Programme Development

The BUCAP initiative was built from the errors/lessons and successes of otherSEARICE programmes/projects, especially CBDC (Community Biodiversity Develop-ment and Conservation), CONSERVE/Seeds of Survival. From these, we tried to de-velop a participatory programme development even as at the same time it tried toidentify its partners.

The best example was in Vietnam were even the farmers (through the IPM clubs)were involved in designing and defining the program proposal. From the start, we vis-ited some farming communities and asked what they thought is the possibility of hav-ing a project on on-farm plant genetics resources conservation and development. Wewere grilled endless on what our objective is and how do we plan to achieve this. Itwas fortunate that most of the rice farmers we visited who are involved in the IPMprogramme are now looking at other possible areas of study. They said that develop-ing PGR with good resistance to pest and diseases and with good production poten-


45

tial is the next step for plant protection. There were series of consultations and work-shops with the farming communities, which were identified by the people from thePlant Protection Sub department at the province using a set of criteria which they de-fined based on our discussions, to brainstorm the process, initial content of the projectand their planned activities at the community. These planned activities were pooledinto a provincial plan by the PPSD. The provincial plans were then combined by thePPD, FAO-IPM and CIDSE-Hanoi to form the national plan for Vietnam.

This courage to open up the process was possible because of our previous experi-ences with the other programs of SEARICE. In our earlier attempts we were not bale tobring in as much participation of communities as early as the project developmentstage or the proposal writing stage. The level of participation, which we achieved inour earlier program, was consultative. This time, there were cases of consultative andcollegial level of participation in proposal writing. This process is one of the strengthsof BUCAP.

Identification of the crop/s

Rice is the main crop of the project although we are aware that sustainable devel-opment in agriculture should not be dependent on a single crop (mono-crop systems).There are four reasons why we chose rice.

First, rice is the central crop of these farming systems. To have an impact for sus-tainable agriculture at the farmer level requires intervention on this major crop. Thebest example is the expansion to other crops of the IPM technology and the participa-tory research discipline propagated by IPM. The IPM’s success on the rice crop builtthe foundation from which the farmers expanded their research and experimentationto other crops.

Second, rice has suffered the greatest reduction of its genetic base. It is in the ricecrop where diverse local varieties had been largely replaced by much fewer cultivars,where genetic erosion has occurred. Most of the other species cultivated in rice-basedfarming systems are mainly farmer varieties. No significant genetic erosion has oc-curred with most of the other crops cultivated under rice-based farming systems.

Third, it is also in the rice crop where the farmers? Knowledge system of PGR man-agement had been replaced by institutional and/or commercial based knowledgesystem. Farmers? Knowledge systems continue to dominate in the research and devel-opment of the other species cultivated in the rice-based farming systems.

Fourth, there is a need to focus the project’s limited resources, in terms of funds,personnel and expertise. The project needs to gain experiences, lessons and successeson one crop (it is also the most important crop). The resource needed every time anew crop is added, in terms of expertise, different research requirements, different re-sources, etc., is very high.

Again, our choice for rice and the lowland irrigated areas were made on the basisof our experiences with CBDC and CONSERVE. With CONSERVE, we work with low-land irrigated rice, upland rice and corn. With CBDC we work with lowland irrigatedrice and root crops. We saw that the impact of on-farm PGR conservation and devel-opment is fastest in the lowlands.


46

Challenges

BUCAP will be faced and is faced with many challenges. It is an ambitious pro-gram that looks at the possibility of increasing agro-biodiversity and production bystrengthening farmers’ role in PGR research and development. Among the challengesit has to face are:

a) Can we achieve this objective on community based PGR conservation and devel-opment by targeting the most challenging area - the prime irrigated rice lands,where the impacts of green revolution are so pronounced and where national andIRRI researches have focused for decades?

b) By having BUCAP as a national project there is even a greater pressure to succeed.Can the current multi-stakeholder composition and involvement bring about suc-cess and strengthen farmers’ participation? At this stage, at least there is a com-mon understanding and pursuit to bring farmers knowledge and science into PGRresearch, but in the actual implementation, how will this work out?

c) As a project with the national government, what form will policy advocacy take? Ifwe are able to succeed on the ground, can we use our current national partners toadvocate and push for policy changes within? SEARICE has no experience yet onthis field and we liken the new form of policy advocacy work for BUCAP as askingthe government to stab itself. But can it be done with a strong support fromgrassroots effort?

d) This is a new form of partnership for SEARICE and its long-time funding partner, theDevelopment Fund of Norway. Will BUCAP be able to provide a good workingmodel for this new form of partnership? What is the possibility that we can have thesame partnership with other funding agencies? What lessons can we draw from theexperiences of BUCAP?

e) BUCAP is a very small part of the effort to address the issue of weak nation statesagainst corporate monopoly. We’ve looked at one small area, what can we drawfrom the experience of BUCAP in this arena? SEARICE, by working with national re-search centres and extension agencies also aims to strengthen these institutionsand by strongly bringing in farmers’ participation strengthen public research. Willthis be one way to move forward with public research?

f) For purposes of GFAR, BUCAP represents one effort on agro-biodiversity research,one example of what is happening on the ground, of what to do next. Where arethe CGIAR Centres in this effort?


47

Indigenous Institutions For Managing Livestock GeneticDiversity in Rajasthan (India)

by Hanwant Singh Rathore (Lokhit Pashu-Palak Sansthan) & Ilse Köhler-Rollefson(League for Pastoral Peoples)

Introduction

Rajasthan, a state in the Northwest of India, is known for its desert conditions andharsh climate with maximum temperatures up to 50° C. Mean annual rainfall rangesfrom less than 100 mm in the extreme west and over 1000 mm in the east. The yearlyamount of precipitation is also extremely variable and, on average, every third yearwitnesses a shortage of rain while every eight years there is a major drought or fam-ine.

Rajasthan has long been famous for the excellent quality of its livestock, which con-tribute a significant share to the national milk and wool output. Although it hosts only7% of India’s cattle population and 21% of its total sheep, Rajasthan provides morethan 10% of the national milk yield and more than 40% of the wool.

Representing a hub of domestic animal diversity, Rajasthan is home to a largernumber of officially recognized livestock breeds (see box). It is significant that the ma-jority of these descript, phenotypically well-defined breeds hail from the western, i.e.arid part of the state. The Imperial Gazetteer for Rajputana from 1908 noted that ”themain wealth of the desert lands of the west and north consists in the vast herds of cam-els, horned cattle, and sheep which roam over the sandy wastes and thrive admirablyin the dry climate”. According to the same source ”in the east there is nothing remark-able about the livestock”.

Officially Recognized Livestock Breeds of RajasthanOfficially Recognized Livestock Breeds of Rajasthan

7 breeds of cattle: Tharparkar, Kankrej, Nagauri, Gir, Rathi, Malviand Haryana8 breeds of sheep: Marwari, Jaisalmeri, Nali, Magra, Pugal,Chokla, Malpura and Sonadi3-4 breeds of goat: Marwari, Sirohi, Jakkharanaseveral camel breeds: Bikaneri, Jaisalmeri , Mewari, Marwari etc.1 horse breed: Marwari

Examples of Threatened Breeds/Species

Nagauri Cattle

The Nagauri cattle from the ”Swalak” area in Nagaur district (250 mm mean an-nual rainfall) is very famous as a draught breed and used to be exported to Multan,Sind and other regions. It was developed by Jat farmers to resemble a horse rather


48

than a cow with a very light body and has no superfluous fleshy hangings at dewlap,prepuce, or testicles (Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh 1981). This particular pheno-type was achieved by both selective breeding and specific management practices.The young calf is starved from milk so that it will never develop fat cells and alwaysremain lean. Later its access to roughage is also restricted to prevent the rumen fromexpanding. A normal diet is started only after the rumen has been stunted. (AkhilBharat Krishi Goseva Sangh 1981). In the 1980s pairs (jori) of Nagauri bullocks fordraught were still very popular and purchased by customers from Punjab and UttarPradesh for top prices (more than 20.000 Rs.). Currently this breed is very much in de-cline because the demand for fast bullocks has decreased.

Tharparkar cattle

This is a dual-purpose breed from the India-Pakistan border area, which is highlydisease resistant, and heat tolerant (due to black skin and white coat). Even under theextremely harsh climatic conditions of the Thar Desert, cows give 9-11 or sometimeseven 16 kg of milk per day with a very high fat content. Earlier bullocks were alsopopular as draught animals. This breed is regarded as ”threatened”, but estimates ofthe current population size vary dramatically. Some experts assume that the entirecattle population of the two districts where it occurs represents ”Tharparkar”, whichwould amount to a population of several tens of thousands. Others say that only the200 or so cattle kept on the state breeding farms can be considered as ”Tharparkar”.For local people, on the other hand, the term ”Tharparkar” is meaningless - they referto it as ”Sindhan”.

A rapid rural appraisal session with farmers revealed a complex set of reasons forthe disappearance of the Tharparkar breed (Köhler-Rollefson, 2000):

Political: After partition, most purebred animals had ended up on the Paki-stani side of the border. Formerly, cattle breeders had undertaken seasonalmigrations, but this has become impossible.

Gene drain: Some time later milk sellers from Jodhpur had purchased alarge number of the remaining high-quality animals.

Crossbreeding: The Tharparkar breeding area has become infiltrated withcattle belonging to other breeds (Kankrej in the south and Rathi in the north),on the search for pasture. This has lead to unintentional crossbreeding anddilution.

Ecological: The pasture base - Sewan grass that used to be abundant - hasbecome degraded, partly due to the influx of animals from other areas.

Economic: Since there is no longer a demand for the male animals as nei-ther draught bullocks, nor can they legally be sold for meat, people alsohave lost interest in breeding these animals

The one-humped camel (dromedary)

India has the third largest camel population in the world and the camel has longrepresented an important component of Rajasthan’s agro-biodiversity and culturalheritage. Even today, there is much demand for male camels as a source of draught


49

power by the poorer sections of the rural community. Nevertheless, according to thelatest available census data, the camel population is dwindling rapidly, with espe-cially the proportion of young animals being in severe decline. This is due to the factthat camel breeders opt out of the business despite prices for camels being high andincreasing further every time the diesel prices are raised. At the root of the problem isthe alienation of the traditional grazing areas, which makes it impossible to raisecamels, despite strong demand. Impaired nutritional status has increased disease in-cidence and the rate of abortion, which further decreases the already low reproduc-tive rate of camels. Although experience has shown that the provision of health careand access to good quality male breeding camels can contribute to stabilizing camelnumbers, policy changes, such as reservation of grazing areas, are required if thecamel population is to be maintained at a reasonable level (LPPS, 1999a).

Indigenous Animal Genetic Resource Management

In view of western Rajasthan’s extreme environmental constraints with shortages offeed and water being regular features of daily life, it is surprising that the livestock ofthis area is not only hardy but also much more productive than in the eastern part ofthe state or other parts of India. We believe that the superior quality of the breeds inthis part of the state is a reflection of highly developed local institutions for managinganimal genetic resources and of mechanisms that ensure genetic improvement in thecontext of the given environmental limitations. Representing highly evolved and suc-cessful human adaptations to a high risk environment, these practices and institutionsare manifestations of a long pastoral tradition and way of life (Köhler-Rollefson 1993,1997).

While in western Rajasthan practically everybody owns a few heads of livestock forsubsistence purposes, there are also communities, which are specialized pastoralistsand supply livestock and its products for sale or barter. These include the Rebari/Raika, Gujjar, Sindhi Muslims, Gairi and Bhats. The most famous among these are theRaika who earlier took care of the camel breeding herds kept by the Maharajahs. To-day only a minority of the Raika still breed camel while many have become largescale sheep breeders or left the pastoral occupation altogether. It is mainly these pas-toral communities whom the knowledge about breeding is vested with. This will be il-lustrated with a few examples.

Camel Genetic Resource Management

For camels, the Raika, a hereditary camel breeding caste, keep oral records of ge-nealogies, tracing the ancestry of their herds in female lines. (Every animal in a herdhas a name and a female animal is usually named after its mother.) They seem toconceive breeding stock more as communal heritage rather than private property. If aperson owns a good-quality male, he is obliged to make it accessible to anybodyelse who needs his females to be mated. Some breeding bulls can attract hundreds offemales, clearly going beyond their service capacity. On the other hand, the sale offemale camels to anybody outside the community is traditionally not condoned bythe community (although this is now changing). Female animals usually change own-ership only at the occasion of marriages, being sent as dhamini when the bride joinsher in-laws.


50

While, due to limited economic returns, not all camel breeders can afford to be fin-icky, the majority select male camels used for breeding with great care, taking intoaccount a wide variety of criteria, such as looks, size, colour, temperament and milkyield of the mother and other female relatives. In the first year, a male camel is al-lowed to service only a limited number of females - but if the offspring turns out well,is he used more widely. They see it as a good sign if the calves ”look more like the fa-ther than the mother”. The Raika also profess to prefer bulls that sire a high propor-tion of males (although according to scientific genetics this is not possible). In order toprevent inbreeding they routinely change the stud after four years (Köhler-Rollefson,1993, 1997).

The Raika are a good source of information in regards to the traits and advan-tages of local breeds and strains. For instance, they had been aware of the Malvicamel, a breed with high milk potential, for decades before it came to the attention ofoutsiders and was reported scientifically (Köhler-Rollefson and Rathore, 1996).

Cattle Breeding Institutions

Castration

Cattle are kept by people from all castes. The superior quality of the cattle breedsin western Rajasthan by comparison with the rest of the state has been linked to thefact that in ”Marwar” (western Rajasthan) village communities meted out strict punish-ment to people who did not castrate male cattle that had not been sanctioned by thecommunity as fit for breeding (Kothari, pers. comm.). There was a special caste incharge of castration, the Satyas (Alstrom, 1999). In ”Mewar” (southern Rajasthan)where farmers depended mostly on crops and kept only a small number of animalsfor work or dung production, such regulations did not exist. In some parts of Marwar,the old practice of community-enforced castration now also seems to have fallen intooblivion. To some extent this is because the community is no longer prepared to carryout this socially debasing task (Alstrom, 1999). In addition with few or no economicbenefits emanating from cattle breeding there is no point in upholding the tradition.

Village Bulls

A survey conducted by Lokhit Pashu-Palak Sansthan in 50 villages of the Godwararea (a part of former Marwar) revealed that the institution of the village bull is aliveand well. This is a truly community embedded institution with villagers jointly selectingthe animal and each household contributing to its purchase cost, sharing the expenseof its upkeep (in green fodder and grain) and the salary (in cash and in kind) of akeeper. Most of the villages also maintain a communally owned buffalo (pardah)along the same lines, but for this animal it is also necessary to provide a stable. Somevillages go to great expense to obtain good quality bulls and buffaloes from long dis-tances and superior genotype (LPPS, field notes).

Indigenous Breed Classification

The Godwar Raika also are associated with and have created a cattle breed that islocally known as ”Nari”, but has not yet been documented scientifically. It core breed-ing zone is in the area between Nana Bera in Pali district and Sirohi. This breed is saidto come from the Aravalli forest (nar means hilly area) and kept in migratory hus-bandry systems. Distinguished by its concave (”dished” face, white markings on theface, grey body colour and long lyre-shaped horns, it is a dual purpose breed for


51

both milk and draught that is also extremely drought resistant. Villagers come fromnear and far to purchase male animals from the Nari breeding area in order to up-grade their own herds (LPPS, 1999b and field notes).

Gaushala

Another type of traditional institution that makes a contribution to maintaining live-stock genetic diversity is the gaushala. Gaushalas are religiously motivated cow sanc-tuaries. Usually initiated by wealthy or religious people but co-funded by donationsfrom the general public, they feed and take care of cattle that are no longer wantedby its owners, because of old age, sickness, or lack of productivity. During droughtsthese gaushalas have a valuable buffer function. Against a donation, they acceptcows that their owners can no longer support because of the unavailability or highprice of feed. Once the drought is over, the gaushalas dispense these animals back tothe community, again against a fee. Some of these gaushalas also make attempts toconserve and improve local breeds.

Sheep and Goat

Sheep raisers usually recruit breeding rams from own herds. Based on the qualityof their dam, promising lambs are singled out at birth and provided with special careand feed. Use for breeding starts at the age of two years and lasts for three years. Fe-male sheep all have individual names. If a Raika wants to start a herd, then all hislivestock-owning relatives will contribute animals, up to 20 head each (LPPS fieldnotes).

In regards to goat there is the practice of ”amr-bakra”. As a religious act, somegoat keepers devote male goats to God by attaching a small ring in one of his ears.This goat is then set free in the village and can be used by others for breeding. Every-body will feed this animal and nobody will dare to do it any harm.

Donkey

Rajasthan has a donkey population of almost 200 000 head, according to officialsources. Exclusively members of lower casts, such as Kalbelia Yogis, Kumhars andBhat, keep this species. For them it is indispensable as a beast of burden carryingloads practically without supervision. Some of its products, including milk and dung,are valued in traditional medicine. Donkeys also ease the workload of women. Butfrom the official side, this animal remains ignored and stigmatised. The donkey melaheld in Bavgarh Banda near Jaipur has been an annual event for a couple of hundredyears and is attended by breeders and traders from several states, but its organizerscomplain that they have never been able to attract a bureaucrat or politician to pre-side over its inauguration function!

According to the scientific view, the donkeys of India are not differentiated in thebreeds. However, a quick survey among the buyers and sellers at the mela revealedthat local knowledge distinguishes between at least three types of donkeys,Kathiawari, Ner and Jhadi. Moreover, the Kathiawari donkey, imported from Gujaratfetches quite considerable prices - raging from Rs. 5,000 - 10,000, ergo represents aconsiderable economic asset - of higher value than most cows or even camels! Evenmore astonishing is the fact that male donkeys that can be used for mule production,i.e. are willing and able of mating with horse mares, are valued at more than150,000 Rs. (LPPS field notes).


52

Conservation of grazing areas

Going beyond the scope of this paper, but deserving to be mentioned are varioustraditional institutions that protect grazing areas with the aim of reserving forage fortimes of drought. One example is the ”oran”, a piece of land belonging to a templeand protected by a local deity. In orans the cutting of trees and grass is prohibited butthey are opened up for livestock grazing in severe crises (Robbins, 1998).

Government Interventions in Animal Breeding

Unfortunately, the intricate community-embedded mechanisms for managing ani-mal genetic resources have a very low visibility to the outsider - they are not evidentunless one looks for them and takes the time to investigate. Accordingly, the rhetoricemanating from the formal institutions dealing with the livestock sector decries live-stock breeders as backward, and asserts that the local breeds have deteriorated dueto inbreeding, indiscriminate cross-breeding, scrub bulls, etc. With respect to cattle itis stated that its keepers are not aware of the need to rotate bulls to prevent inbreed-ing, nor know about the oestrus cycle and the proper timing of breeding. For sheep, itis said that farmers have not yet begun to appreciate scientific facts of breeding, thattheir methods of breeding and management are antiquated and uneconomic andthat they have no breeding policy (Kavoori, citing Narayan 1948).

Against this background, official policies have long been oriented towards improv-ing cattle, sheep and goat breeds by crossbreeding with exotic breeds.

Cattle

Crossing of local cattle with Jersey, Red Dane and Holstein was started in the early1970s and initially restricted to peri-urban areas. After 1974 when the World Bankprovided a loan for expansion of dairy cooperatives, it was extended to the rural ar-eas. Currently, the government of Rajasthan is operating 2700 points for artificial in-semination with exotic breeds. But this intervention is not popular with the rural popu-lation, especially women who regard it as unnatural. Furthermore it entails loss ofcontrol over the whole process of breeding since there is no chance to actually see theprovider of the semen. For the rural people, ”Holstein” or ”Jersey” are meaninglessand interchangeable terms and agreeing to A.I. equates an act of blind faith. Untilrecently, veterinary doctors had to perform a certain number of inseminations permonth, in order not to face salary deductions.

In 1998, the breeding policy was revised and now gives emphasis on the conserva-tion and improvement of indigenous breeds, which are to be promoted if local breed-ers are interested. A.I. with exotic breeds is to be performed only when demanded(Government of Rajasthan 1998)

Goats

Because the indigenous goats were conceived as inferior, the Indo-Swiss Goat De-velopment and Fodder Production Project set out in 1981 to promote crosses of thelocal Sirohi breed with Alpine and Toggenburg goats from Switzerland. The projectlater came to the conclusion that the crosses did not perform as well as expected andthat the productivity of the local Sirohi breed was higher than had been assumed(Kropf et al., 1992). Henceforth it switched to the propagation and genetic improve-ment of the Sirohi breed.


53

Sheep

The history of interventions by the especially instituted Sheep and Wool De-partment that was intended to upgrade the local sheep breeds by cross-breeding withexotic rams from Europe has recently been chronicled (Kavoori, 1999; Ray, 1999).These efforts to upgrade the local breeds by crossbreeding with more prolific and bet-ter wool yielding exotic sheep have not gained acceptance by sheep raisers (due tohigh mortality, problems with feed supply and other factors) and failed to achieve anymeasurable impact.

Conclusions

The migratory pastoralists of Rajasthan are conceived as marginal people that arebound by traditions and unwilling to change by the government, and this perceptionis shared by much of the rural population. The Raika, in particular, have the reputa-tion of being the most ”socially-backward” caste. But it is precisely their reluctance togive up the old ways, their tenacity in sticking to time honoured customs (such as notselling female animals), their refusal (or inability) to abandon old patterns of animalproduction which also has up to now conserved what is left of Rajasthan’s indigenousanimal genetic resources.

In view of Rajasthan’s frequent droughts and rapidly depleting groundwater sup-plies, pastoralism probably represents by far the most sustainable land-use option.Because the Raika generally do not own land, intensive animal production relying onespecially grown green fodder is unlikely to represent an option for them. Basicallythe Raika have only the choice of continuing their pastoral existence or of merginginto the urban labour force. If that happens, then this will probably be the end of thecamel, the sheep genetic diversity and of the Nari cattle.

By signing the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), India has committed itself to ”re-spect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenousand local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservationand sustainable use of biological diversity and to promote their wider application”.Furthermore, the CBD explicitly states that biodiversity should be conserved in the sur-roundings it was developed, and in the case of livestock this refers to pastoral andfarming communities.

In essence, the CBD provides a legal tool for the Raika to get credit for theirachievements as animal breeders and creators of local breeds and to press for ben-efits, such as free animal health care and medicines, in return for the role they play asguardians of livestock genetic diversity (Köhler-Rollefson, 2000). Explaining this con-cept to them is difficult, since their universe often only encompasses a few villages andmany of them are hardly aware of the existence of the state and center government,but it is a challenge that needs to be tackled by NGOs and other actors in rural devel-opment.


54

References

Alstrom, S. 1999. The social dimensions of cattle castration in Northern Rajasthan, inHooja, R. & Joshi, R., Eds.) Desert, drought and development: Studies in resourcemanagement and stability. Rawat Publications, Jaipur and New Delhi, p. 316-324.

Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh 1981. Exotic Cross Breeding of Cattle in India.Re-port for the Expert Committee. Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, Bombay.

Government of Rajasthan, Department of Animal Husbandry. 1998. Breeding policyin Rajasthan for Cattle & Buffaloes. Jaipur.

Imperial Gazetteer of India. 1908. Provincial series. Rajputana. Superintendent ofGovernment Printing, Calcutta.

Kavoori, P. 1999. Pastoralism in Expansion: The Transhuming Herders of Rajasthan.Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Köhler-Rollefson, I. 1993. Pastoralists as guardians of biological diversity, in Indig-enous Knowledge and Development Monitor 1(3):14-16.

Köhler-Rollefson, I. 2000. Management of Animal Genetic Diversity at CommunityLevel, Report Prepared for GTZ

Köhler-Rollefson, I. 1997. Indigenous practices of animal genetic resource manage-ment and their relevance for the conservation of domestic animal diversity in de-veloping countries, Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 114(3):231-238.

Köhler-Rollefson I. and Rathore, H.S. 1996. The Malvi camel: a newly discoveredbreed from India. Animal Genetic Resources Information 18:31-42.

Kropf, W., N. Prasad, O.P. Sharma, B. de Groot and G. Nieuwshof, 1992. A compari-son of reproductive performance and milk production of Sirohi goats with Alpineand Toggenburg Crosses. Paper presented at the Vth International Goat Confer-ence 2-8 March, New Delhi.

LPPS. 1999a. The Camel in India: A Threatened Livestock Species?

LPPS. 1999b. The First Three Years.

Ray, S. 1999. Declining production conditions of raw wool. Analysis of emerging con-flicts in sheep husbandry in Rajasthan. Economic and Political Weekly 34(20):1209-1214.

Robbins, P. 1998. Nomadization in Rajasthan, India: Migration, institution andeconomy. Human Ecology 26(1): 87-112.


55

Implementing the Convention on Biodiversity With Re-spect to Domestic Animal Diversity

By Ilse Köhler-Rollefson, League for Pastoral Peoples

Background

The FAO (FAO, 1999; FAO/UNEP, 1995) is alerting the global community to thealarming figures in respect to domestic animal diversity. It estimates that about onethird of the world’s recognized 5000 livestock and poultry breeds are endangeredand that breeds become extinct at the rate of one per week. Nevertheless, the subjecthas received much less attention than plant genetic diversity and hardly any aware-ness appears to exist about the problem of animal genetic resource erosion amongeither donor agencies or among NGOs and groups at the grassroots level. Contraryto the situation with plant genetic resources, approaches for participatory conserva-tion are lacking, although the majority of the threatened AnGR are vested with tradi-tional pastoralist and farmer communities. Domestic animal diversity is an outcomeof these very diverse ethnic and social groups managing domesticated animal popu-lations in a wide variety of habitats and manipulating their genetic composition ac-cording to their own needs, cultural preferences, indigenous knowledge and ecologi-cal conditions.

The reasons why indigenous breeds become extinct are manifold. Factors includereplacement or cross-breeding with exotic breeds, alienation of common property re-sources (due to break-down of traditional management institutions, crop cultivation,irrigation projects, wildlife protection, tourism, etc.), political conflicts (land disputesand wars), natural disasters (droughts, floods, cyclones), technological advances (re-placement of work animals by machines), integration into the global economy,unfavourable marketing and policy environments for local livestock products, andothers.

Article 8 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity states that genetic resourcesshould be conserved in the ”surroundings where they have developed their distinctproperties” - which with respect to livestock is a reference to the farming and pastoralcommunities that have nurtured local breeds. Furthermore, the CBD spells out that”the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities em-bodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of bio-logical diversity are respected, preserved and maintained”. Clearly, the spirit of theCBD calls for a participatory approach to animal genetic resource conservation.

Formal Research on Animal Genetic Resourcesand the CBD

Let us now look at the activities and approaches of the two international institu-tions that have shouldered responsibility for finding solutions to the problem of ani-mal genetic resource erosion, in the light of the provisions made in the CBD.


56

FAO

The Food and Agriculture Organization has been given a world mandate to study,advise, and set guidelines on conserving livestock genetic resources for present andfuture food security. A core activity of FAO’s Initiative for Domestic Animal Diversity(DAD) is the establishment of a database to inventory and monitor AnGR resourcesworldwide — the DAD Information System or DAD-IS (http://www.fao.org/dad-is).Designated national coordinators in FAO member countries provide the informationthat is entered into DAD-IS. They characterize breeds according to their productioncharacteristics and population size. The former include milk yield, lactation length,milk fat, litter size, birth weight, adult weight, and adult wither height. Population datarecorded in DAD-IS include total population size, total number of females bred, totalnumber of males used for breeding, etc. Up to date more than 5000 livestock andpoultry breeds have been registered in DAD-IS. Currently, documentation is further be-ing refined with individual countries compiling national status reports.

Going beyond documentation, the FAO Initiative is also involved in capacity build-ing for achieving conservation of those breeds classified in the database as endan-gered and critical. Another task is to promote sharing of precious genetic resources aswell as free access to this global ”public good”. To achieve this, the Initiative has setup an intergovernmental mechanism, a technical programme of management sup-port for countries, a cadre of experts, and a country-based global infrastructure of na-tional coordinators. Accepting that it will neither be possible nor even desirable tosave the large number of recognized breeds, the FAO has invested heavily into aproject of establishing genetic distances between the breeds of various species. Theaim is to identify those breeds that are taxonomically most distinct and should there-fore be prioritised for conservation (Barker, 1999).

The FAO has commissioned an expertise on the implications of the CBD for themanagement of animal genetic resources and the conservation of domestic animaldiversity (Strauss, 1994). It makes the point that ”the indigenous knowledge that hashelped to produce and maintain domestic animal diversity is largely unexplored andyet this knowledge is essential in order to understand and continue developing theseanimal genetic resources.” (FAO n.d.).

ILRI

Activities at the International Livestock Research Institute in Addis Ababa also focuson genetics at the molecular level such as establishment of a phylogenetic tree forcattle breeds of Africa and Asia and mapping of genetic traits. Again, these efforts areundertaken with an eye on identifying those genetic resources that are most worthy ofbeing saved. ILRI makes no reference to the CBD (mention of which is also notably ab-sent in the New Vision and Strategy of the CGIAR 2000). In its breed survey question-naire it however asks for certain information on ”adaptive and unique attributes” tobe supplied from the Indigenous Knowledge of Farmers.

Omission of indigenous knowledge

The data collection strategies and databases of both institutions are geared to-wards the needs of scientists and representatives of government institutions. Rooted informal scientific concepts and values, they are not designed to integrate and makeuse of indigenous knowledge. This results in an incomplete picture of the actual situa-


57

ILRI has made the following public goodsavailable according to information pre-sented at its website (http://www.cgiar.org/ilri/products)

r A database on the distribution and physi-cal performance characteristics of Africancattle, sheep and goats

r A phylogenetic tree for cattle breeds ofAfrica and Asia

r Methods for determining ruminantbreeds at risk of extinction

r A reference herd of N’Dama-Boran cross-bred cattle serving as an international re-source for a global project to develop aprimary genetic map of cattle

r The first mapping of quantitative trait locicontrolling resistance to haemoparasiticdisease of major economic importance(animal trypanosomiasis)

r A set of genetic markers disclosing supe-rior disease (trypanosomiasis)-resistantanimals for use in livestock breedingprogrammes.

tion on the ground that could interfere withconservation efforts.

n Stock raisers and scientists use differentterminologies and categories when refer-ring to local livestock breeds. Farmers’breed classification systems may be morerefined than the latter, indicating the exist-ence of breeds that have escaped scien-tific attention. For instance, scientistsopine that India’s donkey population hasnot diversified into breeds, but local don-key experts distinguish at least three, phe-notypically quite distinct types of donkeythat hail from three different areas — mak-ing them, in all probability, three breedsor at least strains. Similarly, pastoralistshad long known a camel breed from Indiawith high milk-production potential beforeit was reported scientifically for the firsttime (Köhler-Rollefson and Rathore 1995).

n Stock raisers evaluate breeds differentlythan scientists. Whereas the latter arechiefly interested in documenting the out-put per single production cycle (under op-timal husbandry conditions), feed and sys-tem efficiency is of greater relevance tofarmers who raise animals under severeenvironmental constraints and have tocope with seasonal shortcomings in fod-der supply. In addition, many breeds areappreciated for characteristics that have little to do with productivity, such as ritualsignificance, social role and aesthetic aspects.

n Population data that are based on scientific breed concepts and do not draw onlocal breed definitions and terminologies can be misleading. This is illustrated bythe case of the Tharparkar cattle in India where no agreement obtains among sci-entists about which animals are to be subsumed under this category. Some scien-tists count the entire cattle population (several tens of thousands of head) in the twodistricts of India where it occurs (or once occurred), while others consider only thecouple of hundred animals kept on state breeding farms as “true Tharparkar”. Lo-cal people on the other hand do not know what ‘Tharparkar’ means and insteadrefer to it as ‘Sindhan’ (Köhler-Rollefson 2000).

As the FAO acknowledges, the sustainable management of AnGR is only feasiblewith the active participation of farmers and pastoralists. ”The most rational and sus-tainable way to conserve animal genetic resources is to ensure that locally adaptedbreeds remain a functional part of production systems” (FAO, 1999). Adoption of lo-cal categories and understanding of local institutions for managing AnGR resourceswould be a prerequisite for the development of such participatory approaches.


58

Furthermore, omission of indigenous knowledge and perspectives results in anevaluation of animal breeds on the basis of their outputs of cash products only. It is ex-actly the conception of animals as commodity producing machines while ignoringother vital traits that has been a prime mover in genetic resource erosion. On theother hand, domestic animal diversity in the South has evolved precisely because itspeople and cultures relate to animals in a different manner and accord them variablesocial status and ceremonial roles.

Hence reducing animals to gene sequences is neither legitimate nor will it serve thepurpose of conserving domestic animal diversity. We must bear in mind that it wasfarmers and pastoralists who have created domestic animal diversity by subjectinganimal populations to diverse cultural and ecological regimes. Scientifically designedmanipulations of gene pools such as artificial insemination, embryo-transplantation,and now cloning on the other hand have invariably resulted in genetichomogenisation. (That this can have positive effects is not disputed here, but repre-sents an entirely different matter).

Setting priorities for breed conservation via molecular genetic techniques is a sci-entific shortcut that ignores the human dimensions of domestic animal resources. Itwould seem much more urgent and appropriate to establish a dialogue with the eth-nic groups and communities that are associated or have co-evolved with the respec-tive breeds1 . Understanding of their needs, priorities and attitudes should form the ba-sis for developing conservation strategies. Science alone cannot be expected to con-serve DAD, nor will in-situ conservation on government farms and standardized hus-bandry conditions suffice. Instead, we need to foster as large a diversity of ap-proaches to conservation as possible by getting rural development NGOs, pastoralistassociations and others into the picture!

Value of Local Breeds

One important factor driving the process of animal genetic resource erosion is lackof confidence in the value of local breeds. For decades, southern livestock breedswere a priori regarded as less productive than their northern counterparts. Further-more, it was believed that genetic improvement by selection within the breed was tootime-consuming to be worthwhile; hence all energies were spent on attempting aquick fix by crossbreeding. There is now increasing evidence that local breeds may notonly be superior, but also that their productivity can be further improved within reason-able timeframes. One example concerns the various zebu cattle breeds (includingOngole, Gir, Kankrej) that were exported from India to Brazil, Australia and othercountries earlier this century. In their new homes they have been improved on geneti-cally and come to represent prime beef or dual purpose producers, whereas the In-dian populations have decreased in number, become diluted due to cross-breedingand in some cases are regarded as threatened. Some private initiatives in India, suchas that by the Gir cattle-breeding farm of the Shri Bhuvaneshwari Pith in Gujarat, showthat considerable improvements in milk production can also be achieved. Exampleswhere efforts to replace local breeds with imported ones were reversed include

1 Not all breeds are associated with particular communities; many of them are composite breeds - the results of sci-entific efforts to create new breeds, but local farmers never adopted that. It is questionable to what extent they need tobe conserved.


59

n The Indo-Swiss goat project in Rajasthan initially tried to popularise crossbreedingof local goats with Swiss breeds but then came to the conclusion that the nativeSirohi goat was superior in many ways (Kropf et al., 1992).

n In Mexico, the Criollo pig was almost replaced by imported white pigs despite itsusefulness for smallholders, its ability to make use of local feed and its better taste(Anderson et al., 1999).

n From South Africa there is the case of the Nguni cattle, which is disease resistantand can thrive on poor pastures. The government upgraded this breed by cross-breeding with European breeds but the improved animals also required muchhigher inputs, which became unaffordable to small farmers. Now there are effortsto re-supply farmers with Nguni cattle whose population has decreased (Blench,1999).

Stock Raisers Rights

So far there have been no efforts to give credit to stock raisers for their role in nur-turing domestic animal diversity, in tune with the concept of ”Farmers Rights”. Thismay in part be due to the fact that the significance of indigenous knowledge and insti-tutions in breed formation processes has not yet filtered into general awareness. Ani-mal scientists subscribe to the opinion that local livestock breeds have evolved only inresponse to ecological conditions without any intellectual inputs by pastoralists orfarmers. Documentation of indigenous institutions and practices of animal genetic re-source management is hence of crucial importance.

Unfortunately this has not yet happened, although the NGO initiative in India to es-tablish People’s Biodiversity Registers provides some valuable pointers. Its intention isto protect people’s rights to their intellectual property and natural resources by build-ing an open and transparent system on biodiversity resources from village level up-wards (Utkarsh, 2000). It is urgent to extend a similar approach to pastoralists andfarmers knowledge on domestic animal resources as well, since it is quite likely thatthe indigenous breeds from the South that currently receive little appreciation may atsome stage in the not so distant future be in great demand in the North as well.

Northern high performance livestock is dangerously inbred and has lost many of itsfitness traits. For instance, modern chicken strains are no longer able to hatch theiryoung, because brooding behaviour is no longer present. Turkeys and certain pigbreeds often can not mate naturally because of heavily developed chest and thighmuscles respectively and depend on artificial insemination for their reproduction.German cows only survive for an average of 2.7 lactation cycles. Farmers who wantto raise poultry under natural conditions outside factory farming systems face prob-lems of finding chicken that can survive outside cages.

To ensure at least a modicum of fitness and vitality in future populations of food-producing animals, and to keep genetic options open, access to fresh genetic mate-rial will therefore always be required. Since most of the wild relatives of today’s do-mesticated animals are extinct, a major source of such material lies with the livestockraised by herders and farmers under extensive, subsistence-oriented production sys-tems in the South. This is already being utilized for such purposes by northern livestockindustries. In 1990 Australia imported embryos of 269 Tuli and 264 Boran cattle from


60

Zimbabwe and Zambia to improve its Friesian stock in regards to fertility, docility andenvironmental stress resistance. These imports were hailed as saviours of the northernAustralian cattle industry (RAFI/UNDP, n.d.). The threatened N’dama cattle were usedto create a new hardy, disease resistant breed called Senapol that is now raised in thesouthern US.

The danger of big corporations’ free-for-all bio-prospecting among indigenous ge-netic resources is definitely real. As a recent paper on swine genetics recounts, ”Somegenotypes formerly not among the ones of economic interest for the industry becametargets of the breeding companies’ research programs which aimed at discoveringand transferring specific genes from these genotypes to the industrial genetic lines.This is for example the case with the highly prolific Chinese breeds and the Iberian pigwith excellent meat quality for production of extensively cured pork products” (Pereiraet al. 1998).

Given that the stock breeding industry zealously guards and patents their own ge-netic materials, there is a moral imperative to extend similar protections to traditionalstock raisers and breeders — although, granted, this will be no easy task.

Conclusions

Currently few benefits seem to percolate down to pastoral and farming communi-ties from AnGR related activities currently pursued by formal sector international andnational institutions. Agendas are pursued predominantly from the so-called ”geneticresource angle” that seeks to save or rescue breeds in their role as carriers of geneticmaterial that might have some economic potential in the future and could be valu-able for humanity at large. While the important role of many indigenous breeds insustaining rural livelihoods is also highlighted by the FAO, the existing strategies areinsufficient for supporting and facilitating sustainable management of AnGR by farm-ers and pastoralists. We must be aware that extinction of a breed is often the outwardsymptom of an existential crisis experienced by the people who previously dependedon it. Many breeds can best be saved by supporting the associated communities intheir livelihoods through appropriate policies, such as those that ensure access topastures and markets.

In order to conserve domestic animal diversity in the South in line with the stipula-tions of the Convention on Biodiversity, activities must be expanded to include the fol-lowing strategies:

n Documentation of the local/indigenous institutions, breeding practices, and cul-tures of the peoples who nurtured and shaped so many hardy livestock breeds.

n Decentralization of activities to involve stock raisers themselves in on-the-groundconservation. Pastoralists with their long history of co-evolution often have a cultur-ally highly developed sense of guardianship, partnership, or even personhood vis-à-vis their animals. This heritage should make them the lead actors in conservationefforts

n Ensuring that the specific ethnic groups and societies receive benefit from sharingthe unique genetic resources they have created.

n Adoption of a more comprehensive sustainable livelihood approach towards con-


61

servation by instituting policies and programmes that secure access to pasture andanimal health care and create a level playing field for the marketing of the prod-ucts of local breeds.

n Information for pastoralists and breeders organizations about the rights they havebeen accorded in countries that are signatories to the CBD

n Capacity building of NGOs to take up roles as intermediary actors between gov-ernments/ research institutions on one hand and farmers/pastoralists on the other.

In summary, it is both technically and ethically imperative to open channels ofcommunication with stock raisers and to institute mechanisms for reaching thegrassroots groups — those who have shaped and stewarded different breeds downthrough the centuries and who stand to lose the most if these unique resources disap-pear from the fact of the earth. In order to successfully implement the Convention onBiodiversity, a close integration of the activities of all stakeholders - researchers, gov-ernments, civil society, but especially livestock keepers and pastoralists - is absolutelyessential and steps towards this goal should be taken without further delay.

References

Anderson, S., Drucker, A. and Gündel, S. 1999. Conservation of Animal Genetic Re-sources. Long distance course, Wye College External Programme. University ofLondon.

Barker, J.S.F. 1999. Conservation of livestock breed diversity. Animal Genetic ResourceInformation 25:33-43.

Blench, R. M. 1999. ‘Til the cows come home’. Why conserve livestock biodiversity ?ODI, London.

FAO, n.d. The Global Programme for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Re-sources. Rome.

FAO, 1999. The Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Re-sources. Executive Brief. Rome.

FAO and UNEP, 1995. World Watch List for Domestic Animal Diversity. Second ed.(Ed. Beate D. Scherf). Rome.

Köhler-Rollefson, I. 2000. Management of animal genetic diversity at communitylevel. Report prepared for GTZ.

Köhler-Rollefson, I., & C. McCorkle. 2000. Domestic animal diversity, local knowl-edge, and Stockraisers’ Rights. Paper presented at the ASA Conference, 2-5 April,2000 at SOAS, London.

Kropf, W., N. Prasad, O.P. Sharma, B. de Groot and G. Nieeuwshof, 1992. A compari-son of reproductive performance and milk production of Sirohi goats with Alpineand Toggenburg Crosses. paper presented at the Vth International Goat Confer-ence 2-8 March, New Delhi.

LPPS 1999. Lokhit Pashu-Palak Sansthan: The first three years. Project Report, Sadri,India.


62

Pereira, F.A. et al.1998. Use of worldwide genetics for local needs. Proceedings of the6th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, pp. 155-160.

RAFI/UNDP.n.d. Conserving indigenous knowledge. Integrating two systems of innova-tion.

Strauss, M.S. 1994 (ed.). Implications of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Re-port of an Infomal Working Group, Animal Production and Health Division, FAO,Rome.

Utkarsh, G. 1999. People’s Biodiversity Register. Compas 2: 16-17.


63

Species Recorded At risk % at risk

Donkey 77 9 37.5Buffalo 72 2 3.6Cattle 787 135 23.2Goat 351 44 16.5Horse 384 120 43.3Pig 353 69 26.0Sheep 920 119 18.1Yak 6 0 0Dromedary 50 2 4.0Bacteria camel 7 1 14.3Alpaca 4 0 0Llama 4 0 0Guinea-pig ? ? ?Duck 62 29 46.8Turkey 31 11 35.5Chicken 606 274 45.2Muscovite duck 14 5 35.7Goose 59 28 47.5Guinea-fowl 22 4 18.2Quail 24 16 66.7Pigeon 19 4 21.1

Total 3851 872 22.6

Table 1: Numbers of breeds of the major livestock species recordedin the FAO Global databank for Animal Genetic Resources, and thenumbers estimated to be at risk (source: R. M. Blench, 1999)

Table 2: Livestock breeds at risk by region (source: R.M. Blench 1999)

Region Recorded At risk At risk %

Africa 396 27 6.8

Asia Pacific 996 105 10.5

Europe 1688 638 37.8

Near East 220 29 13.2

South-Central America 378 15 4.0

North America 204 59 28.9

World 3882 873 22.5


64

Community Rights andFarmers’ Rights in Thailand

by Wittoon Lianchamroon, Thai Network on Community Rights and Biodiversity(BIOTHAI)

Recent developments in Thailand’s legislation aim at the recognition of traditionalknowledge and the rights of local communities. The Plant Variety Protection bill couldcombine rights of plant breeders to their newly developed varieties with the protectionof native varieties that have been conserved and developed by farmers and localcommunities.

In Thailand communities have had their own rights in administrating and manag-ing their local natural resources ever since Thailand was established as a nation morethan 400 years ago. Although the Thai government made some efforts to centralizethe authority in natural resource administration, in practice the government couldmanage only a few kinds of natural resources such as forests and minerals. The cen-tral authorities still allowed communities to have their own freedom in the manage-ment of water resources and farming. The government did not interfere with the com-munities’ tradition, culture, and ways of living. The main reason may have been thatexisting natural resources and culture did not have economic value in thegovernment’s view. The real change of natural resource management (NRM) in Thai-land began in 1961 when the first National Social and Economic Development Plan,supported by the World Bank and the USA, was launched. As a consequence, planson the development of agriculture, health, education, and natural resources were initi-ated. Through these plans, the government’s authority in the respective fields was be-coming more effective and centralized. At the same time, free market and private sec-tor activities have increased. The Thai government stopped its own state companiesand promoted the role of private companies in many sectors such as banking, indus-try and agriculture. As a consequence the government allowed mining and loggingcompanies to exploit forests and lands that had originally been managed by localcommunities.

The Struggle for Community Rights

The centralization of NRM by the Thai government increasingly caused social andcommunity dispute. Concerns have been raised especially in cases where the govern-ment cooperated with private companies and allowed them to monopolize the use offorests and lands, for instance for logging of tropical woods or eucalyptus tree planta-tions. This practice is opposed by a movement of farmers and people in local com-munities who used to have the authority in managing their own natural resources.Their principal objective at the policy level is to convince the government to enact aCommunity Forestry Bill. This law would give the rights in NRM back to communities.This includes the management of forests, wild products, minerals and genetic re-sources. Although it is not yet enacted, the debate during the process of drafting andlegislation educated the Thai society on the role of local communities in NRM. Theprominent progress in community rights in Thailand can also be noticed in thecountry’s new 1997 constitution. In the constitution, there are three acts such as theCommunity forestry Bill, which state the principles of community rights. Particularly in


65

act 57, community rights for the management of biological resources are clearlymanifested. The statement in the constitution is the principle foundation and offerscrucial tools for the development of laws on the rights of biological resources and in-digenous knowledge in the future.

The Thai Plant Variety Protection Bill

To date Thailand does not have any legislation to protect breeders’ rights on newvarieties, or Farmers’ Rights on traditional varieties. Only the export of some endan-gered species and some cultivated varieties is prohibited by law. In 1994 the Ministryof Commerce and the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation drafted a Plant VarietyProtection Bill to protect new plant varieties and the rights of plant breeders. Thisdraft was based on the 1978 Act of the Convention of the International Union for theProtection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) and was opposed by Thai non-govern-mental organizations (NGOs) and farmers’ networks. Their resistance was groundedon the fact that the draft would now acknowledge the contribution of farmers and lo-cal communities to the development of commercial varieties. Eventually, in 1997 thegovernment formed a national committee composed of representatives from all sec-tors including plant breeders and farmers to redraft the Plant Variety Protection Bill.The present version was drafted to comply with the sui generis principles as outlinedin Art. 27.3. (b) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual PropertyRights (TRIPS) and was approved by the Thai cabinet. However, it still needs the two-round approvals form the parliament before it can be enforced. The Plant VarietyProtection Bill is based on the fact that in developing useful plant varieties, local plantvarieties are employed as their ”first-hand varieties”. Therefore, the Plant Variety Pro-tection Bill protects the benefits for conservers of local plant varieties as well as own-ers of commercial plant varieties. Farmers and communities who conserve and im-prove their varieties will have the similar rights as plant breeders to their newly devel-oped plant varieties. The main principles of the Plant Variety Protection Bill are as fol-lows:

ì A technical sub-committee will be set up by the Ministry of Agriculture to determinewhich varieties are specific for certain regions/communities and are therefore con-sidered to be local varieties.

ì Compensation has to be paid for the use of local plant varieties in the develop-ment of new commercialised varieties. The commercial plant breeder must sign acontract, which grants at least five per cent of the benefit to communities who con-serve the original plant varieties. If new cultivars are bred for the benefit of small-scale farmers and local communities or the general public, no compensation hasto be paid. Compensation also has to be granted when materials from local plantvarieties are extracted to gain ingredients for medicinal or other products.

ì Rights on plant varieties grown only in particular communities will be enforced onlyfor those communities. The rights for commercial benefits of the varieties will be-long to the particular communities for the duration of the protection, which rangesform 15 to 25 years. This rule does not apply if these plant varieties are employedfor public or non-profit purposes.

ì A new plant variety, especially when it is created by genetic modification, will onlybe granted variety protection if its biological safety is proven. If a new variety


66

causes damage to community environment or community health, its owner, by law,is liable for the compensation.

ì The purpose of this law to protect local plant varieties, farmers’ and communityrights is reflected by the composition of the National Plant Variety Committee.Amongst the 23 members of the committee there are six farmers and two represen-tatives of NGOs. The same kind of mechanism is also applied at the regionallevel.

ì The law will establish a foundation for plant variety development and conserva-tion. Income of the foundation arises from different kinds of fees and compensa-tion. It is generated from benefits gained from local wild plant varieties, which donot grow in community forests, and from local plant varieties that are common as-sets of many communities. The role of the foundation is to channel the incomes tothe farmers and the local communities. The income will be used for activities inconserving and developing plant varieties in various communities.

Although some commercial seed companies consider this bill as a hurdle for thedevelopment of new varieties, other breeders feel that it is more useful to have a plantvariety protection in this fashion rather than having no legislation at all.

Plant Variety Protection Bill in Relation to Other Legisla-tion and Treaties

If the Plant Variety Protection Bill is approved as law, it will be related to two otherbills. One is the Traditional Medicine Bill. This bill was already approved by thecabinet and is now being brought to the consideration of the parliament. The differ-ence between the Plant variety Protection Bill and the Traditional Medicine Bill is thatthe latter protects not only plant varieties but also traditional knowledge such as onherbal medicine. However, once these two bills are made legally binding, there maybe cases in which the same kinds of plant varieties are protected by both laws. There-fore it should be clearly classified which type of plant varieties will be protected byeach law. Plant variety protection will also be related to the Thai Patent Act that wasamended in 1992. This Act does not allow for patents on plants, animals and patentsfor microorganisms are only granted if these organisms are modified. It furthermoreexcludes patents on plant varieties, therefore the Plant Variety Protection bill will haveto be enacted to bring Thai legislation in line with the legal requirements as outlinedby the Agreement on TRIPS. The above-mentioned bills will be effective only withinThailand. It is therefore possible to use Thai plant varieties abroad without comply-ing with Thai plant variety protection or patent law. In this case the Thai governmentcannot force a person or organization to pay for the compensation. In principle, theuse of Thai genetic resources outside of the country could be regulated by the accessregime and benefit sharing mechanisms that are stated by the Convention on Biologi-cal Diversity (CBD). At present, Thailand has not ratified the CBD because it was feltthat mechanisms to acknowledge community rights inside the country had to be es-tablished before ”access rights” at an international level could be granted. However,the Thai mechanism of compensating local communities will only be possible if Thai-land has sufficient bargaining power at international level. At present, there are manycountries and groups engaged in elaborating laws to protect Farmers’ Rights, com-munity rights and local genetic resources. The international cooperation amongst de-


67

veloping countries will stimulate each country to work on its own legislation. Further-more, it will counterbalance industrialized countries’ demands in international nego-tiations on, for instance, the CBD or the TRIPS Agreement. It will, as well, result in ben-efit sharing in the case that common genetic resources exist in many countries, or helpto construct mechanisms and principles for the exchange and transfer of biological re-sources.

Sources

S. Chamarik and Y. Santosombat (1993), Community Forest. Bangkok, Thailand: Re-search Books.

GRAIN (ed.) (1997), Signposts to Sui Generis Rights. Background discussion papersfor the international seminar on sui generis rights. Bangkok, Thailand: BIOTHAI.

D.A. Posey (1996), Traditional Resources Right. Cambridge, UK: IUCN.

About Bio Thai

Thai Network on Community Rights and Biodiversity801/8 Ngamwongwan 27 Soi 5, Muang district, Nonthaburi 11000 ThailandTel 662-9527953, 662-9527371 email: [email protected]

Thai Network on Community Rights and Biodiversity or BioThai is a citizen networkfirstly originated from a small forum called ”Thai working group on biodiversity andlocal wisdom”. The group consisted of NGOs, academicians, government officials,lawyers, farmers and people organizations that concern about natural resources con-servation and sustainable development on biodiversity and community rights.

BioThai started its activity by set out popular campaign on biodiversity and com-munity rights since 1996, focusing on problematic aspects in CBD (Convention onBiological Diversity) and an interference on Thailand’s legislative system, dominatedby superpower in the North.

The ultimate objective of BioThai is to promote participation and role of people,particularly, farmers and local organizations, in the development on national policyand law. Concerning biodiversity and community rights, BioThai plays coordinatingrole in the networking among concerned citizen, people organization, state authority,academician, lawyer politician and mass media; to distribute information, raiseawareness, create understanding, among public in the campaign. BioThai also is afollow-up and monitoring body on issues related to biodiversity and the campaign.

Development of the national policy and advocacy:

1. BioThai is involved in the legislative drafting committee on Traditional MedicinesProtection and Promotion Bill and Plant Varieties Protection (PVP) Bill as well as theExecutive Order on Biodiversity Utilization.

2. Campaign on Bio-piracy/Bio-prospecting activity in Thailand: BioThai has continu-ously followed-up and monitored bio-piracy activities of Transnational Corpora-


68

tions in Thailand, for instance RiceTec’s Jasmine-Jasmati case and PortsmouthUniversity’s marine fungus.

3. Publicize and create popular awareness on the impact of biotechnology: BioThaihas distributed critical information on biotechnology such as the importation ofGMOs (genetically modified organisms) in to Thailand. Concerning the negativeimpacts of GMOs crops and food products, BioThai has demanded the govern-ment to consider on GMOs national policy and also set out the campaign of NO-GMOs which finally led to the public debate. The most recent and controversycase is Bt cottonseeds which spread out to commercial fields before biosafety ap-proval by responsible state authority. This shows the lack of responsibility, trans-parency and people’s participation.

4. Networking on international policy on biodiversity and trade related issue: BioThaihas actively coordinated with citizen groups at local, national and internationallevels, in order to create network with common perspectives and seeks for collabo-ration on international laws and policy concerning biodiversity. During 1997-1998, BioThai had co-organized the International Seminar and Workshop on SuiGeneris in Bangkok and the Consultation on TRIPs Review in Geneva.

5. Promotion local organizations, farmers and people networks on community rightsand biodiversity: BioThai, with the coordination of Local Development Institute, hasconducted the study research on biodiversity management and community rights.The results of the study is disseminated to local communities and people network


69

Annex 2

Working Group DiscussionResults as Presented in the

Workshop Plenary

Working Group Discussion Results

70

Working Group 1:Incentives for Farmers to enhance agro-biodiversity – to protect and valorise variet-ies developed by farmers and farmers’ knowledge

I. My experiences with …(title of working group topic)… so far has been…

VERY GOOD GOOD NONE BAD VERYBAD

l l

(2 votes)l l l l l l l

(7 votes)

l l

(2 votes)

Reasons/examplesfor voting:

Address farmers’ needs:§ access/control of seeds§ good yield without

chemical inputsGreat number of adaptors:e.g.§ 387 Peoples’

Organizations§ 97 church-based

organizations§ 46 NGOs

Support partners§ technical scientists§ organizations/ NGOs§ moral persistence =

members (sustainabilityof organization)

Farmers doing breedingand farm conservation e.g.farmer-breeders

Farmers doing thetechnology diffusionthrough organizationsSuccess experience: SeedNetwork (Brazil)+/- 300 NGOs/POs+/- 40,000 farmers

Traditional varietiesrecovered+/- 400 for corn+/- 180 for beans+/- 40 for potatoes

Less costs, more autonomy(motivation)

Incentives: access to geneticmaterial; possibility tocompare performances

Information on how toimprove traditional varieties

Marketing possibilities

Good foods &income (internalincentive)

Against GMO/geneticallyengineeredvarieties

Highly concernedfarmers aboutGMO

Seed security

For reproductionpurposes/breeding/seed material

Food security

Reduce cost

Medicinal purpose

For sale/market

Production cost offarmers reduced

Small scale farmers(mostly women)adapt sustainableagriculture

Soil structure andfertility improved

Empowering:- breeding- FDATs- CSBs

Satisfaction fromsharing seeds,know-how, IKS

Spirituallyrewarding(working withpeople, nature)

Accountability tothe grassroots(people beforeprofit)

Tool for farmers’unity (expandingSFOs)

Organicproduction goodfor agro-biodiversity

Farmers arebasicallyinterested in bothagro-biodiversityand GMO(conflicting?)

Incentives fororganic farming:§ EU regulations§ Marketing

channels§ Labeling


71

II. FAVORABLE CONDITIONS identified as contributing to farmers’involvement in enhancing agro biodiversity.


Farmers + NGOs+ Scientistspartnerships

Have to offertechnical support

To use participatoryapproach

Needs to provideaccess to genetic

resources

Financial Resources

Financial resources toprojects for biodiversity

management

To find money forparticipatory process

To share success storiesas examples

Market

To promote marketniches for traditional

varieties

Finance farmers’access to markets

(infrastructure,equipment)

Farmers’ control ofland needed

Promotion and Motivation

Strong Partnerships

72

III. CONSTRAINTS/NEGATIVE CONDITIONS identified as disincentives forfarmers’ involvement in enhancing agro-biodiversity

MARKET

Market conditions(product norms, etc)

Consumer demandfor introduced crops

Consumers’ attitudetowards modern products

Interest, monopoliesof middlemen onspecific productsPOLICIES

Export-orientedagriculture

Public Policies:- credit oriented toHYV- Extension services

Seed policies basedon UPOV 91 stronglylimits use andexchange oftraditional varieties

Government policiespromote high inputagriculture/HYV

Education system

Research for pushingfor high inputagriculture

Research still orientedonly towards higherproductivity

Lobbying by seedcompanies

Land Tenure

Lack of access ofsmall farmers to land

(land tenure)

LACK OF ACCESS…

Genetic materiallost

Often lack of accessto seeds of localcrops in quantity andquality required

Uncontrolledburning/destruction

of ecosystem

Land-use conversion


73

Working Group 2:Formal, informal, private cooperation to foster agro-biodiversity

I. Experiences With Formal, Informal And Private Cooperation

a. Formal/Government Sector

VERYGOOD

GOOD NONE BAD VERYBAD

l l

(2votes)

l l l l l

(5 votes)

l l l l l

(5 votes)Formal sector stance:Formal sector stance:Let’s work together soyou can help us.

Allow/made possiblenational programs onagro-biodiversityGood but difficultDeveloping regionalprograms (formal sector)

Formal sector does not trustNGO engagementNGO work is notappreciated enough bygovernmentFormal systemunresponsiveFormal sector: nopartnerships to developstrategies“credit grabbing” byGovernment of NGOaccomplishmentIgnorance/arrogance offormal sectorIndifference of Ministry ofAgriculture to biodiversityLow awareness of decisionmakers


74

b. Informal Sector

VERY GOOD GOOD NONE BAD VERY BAD

l l l

(3 votes)

l l l l l l l

(7votes)

l

(1 vote)

l

(1 vote)

Farmers often chooseHYVs over biodiversity

Impact (gets things done)

Works for participatoryprocesses

Stimulated local/ruraleconomy

Revitalized local knowledge

Availability of consultationfrom foreign and localexpertise

Intensive cooperation tofoster PGR due to commoninterest

Availability of funds fromthe West with some privatesector participation

Seed selection built up bycontributions from SFOs andNGOs

Rice/corn breeding and DIFDSbeing done by SFOs

Exchange of experiences andinformation

Training/transforming researchexperience

Help from German NGOs

Open sharing of informationand materials

Substantial development ispossible including indirecteffects.

Farmers’ demand for localcrop diversity

Possibility to be flexible workingthe participatory way

Potentials notutilized

NGO“BBuureaucrazyreaucrazy”

Plant breedersare tooindividualistic tocooperate(compared withanimal breeders)

c. Private Sector

VERY GOOD GOOD NONE BAD VERY BAD

l

(1 vote)

l

(1 vote)

l l l l l l l ll

(9 votes)

Finds the privatesector very reliable,consistent anduseful in what theysay they will do


75

Ecological Animal Qualities Social and Cultural Economic

The only possible landuse strategy

“Bovine/arnica” pasturesystem

Dung

Availability of pasturethat needs to be grazed

Selective browsing habits

Large animals fostererosion in hilly areas

Co-conservation withwildlife

Adaptability (e.g.catabol/anabol)

Robustness, goodconstitution

Disease resistance

Selective browsing habits

Low feed and waterrequirements

Low input requirements

Adapted to the climate

Availability of good malebreeding animals

Character of animals

Indigenous knowledge

Social and culturalimportance

Status

Specialized communities

They already exist withinthe community

Aesthetical andsentimental reasons

Educational value

Multi-purpose use

Animal power

Dung

Serves like a “bank”

Europe/India tourism

Milk and meat quality

Low labour intensity

Adequate price for rarebreeds

India: subsidies for cart-pulling animals


Working Group 3:Incentives and Reasons and Institutional Cooperation For Farmers’/Stock Keepers’Animal Genetic Resource Management

I. Incentives and Reasons

76

Problem Analysis Recommendations

Low information statusabout stock keepers

Bad environmentalreputation

Low status of pastoralism

Rare breed = luxury

More awareness neededMore awareness neededamong all institutionsamong all institutions

Set up information systemthat reaches pastoralists

No markets Create markets for rarebreed products (e.g.camel milk)

Look for industrysponsoring

Not easily quantifiable

Complex systems

More research on rarebreed qualities needed

Selection criteria shouldinclude conservation

Productivity paradigm

Narrow view ofproductivity

Lack of pasture land

Competition with natureconservation

Competition withcash/export crops

Agricultural policiesneglect pastoralists andfavour “improved”breeds

Revise productivityparadigm

Respect pastoralists inland use planning

Involve pastoralists inpolicy decisions

Agriculturalpolicies in favourof pastoralists

Withdrawsubsidies for“improved”breeds


II. Problem Analysis and Recommendations

77

II. Problem Analysis and Recommendations (continued)

Problem Analysis Recommendations

Institutional cooperation

Few isolated institutions,NGOs, government,universities,

Individual farms

Foundations

North/East: Breedingassociations are leading

In D.C. little cooperation

South: village institutionsare not known

Better cooperation inEast and North

Government farms sufferfrom bureaucracy

Formal institutions donot accept informalpriorities

Objective: to support“improved” breed

Not more institutionsneeded

More cooperationbetween them needed

Cooperation if havecommon objectives

Define commonobjectives

Learn from Plant GeneticResources (PGR)institutions

Interaction betweenanimal genetic resources(AGR) and Plant GRinstitutions needed

Multilateral andinternational institutionsshould cooperate

Does national law support orsuppress animal biodiversity?

Document and respectinformal law

No awareness of bio-piracy Increase awareness ofbio-piracy

Monitor bio-piracy


78

Working Group 4:

What can agricultural research do with regard to IPR?

Including IRRI

IPR will loseimportance

Agriculturalresearch shouldtake positionagainstterminator

Animal geneticresources arenot discussed

Exemptpatenting of lifeforms

Recommendation

Preblem: Agricultural Researchshould...

CGIAR has notransparency/accountability

IPR is a threat tobiodiversity

IPRs are noincentive toagriculturalresearch

GMOs are notneeded for foodsecurity

GMOs do notincreaseproductivity andaccess to food

Patentingcreates acontradictionbetween bio-piracy andexchange ofseeds

Even sui generisPlant VarietyProtection (PVP)is not fosteringexchange

Take positionsin favor offarmers/stockkeepers

Take positionagainst IPRs inorder to supportfarmers’ rights

Foster farmers’rights toexchange andsave seeds/animal geneticresources

IPRs should notbe applied toagriculture/lifeforms

Take actionagainst bio-piracy (also IRRI)US tried todelete the suigeneris clause

IPR discussionsdominated byTNCs

US tried todelete the suigeneris clause

TRIPSagreement toreconcile withthe CBD

Expandgeographicalindication tocoveragriculturalproducts

Thai NationalInstitute of Cornand Sorghum isagainst IPRs


79

Biotechnology

GMOs (crops,livestock) within andbetween species

Biotech Research atCGIAR shouldconcentrate and stopat risk and needassessment

Agricultural science isto be seen in thecontext of all workdone in rural areas

GMOs researchshould adhere to thehighest possible safetystandard

To orient research tocontribute towardspoverty alleviation(considering localpotentials)

POSITION: DEMANDS:

To do laboratoryresearch may beacceptable BUT…

Re-orient biotechbudget to biosafetyresearch

We want acomprehensivesafety framework

… and socio-economic impactassessment

Research on safetyissues mustsignificantly increase

Install participatorymonitoring by allstakeholders(industry, consumers,farmers)

Public participationin risk discussions

The inadequate andincomplete protocol ofMontreal must bestrengthened/corrected

CGIAR should play animportant role toestablish appropriate,scientific protocol forassessment of biotechstandards

Biotechnology shouldonly be used inappropriate places


Working Group 5:

80

Working Group 6:Bio-piracy

What is bio-piracy?

n EarlierEarl ier the free exchange of genetic resources was used for the PUBLIC GOOD;bio-piracy then was the change that happens when exchange of germplasm ceasesto be for the public good.

n NowNow, genetic resources are an ”economic” resource that is patented andprivatised. Bio-piracy now means the unauthorized use of genetic resources withoutprior informed consent (PIC) and material transfer agreement (MTA).

Bio-piracy is more clearly indicated in plant genetic resources (PGR) than in animalgenetic resources (AnGR).

There have been some reported cases of bio-piracy in AnGR e.g. the Ongolecattle, which were taken from India for breeding programs but without proper com-pensation for use of such germplasm.

Impact of bio-piracy

Bio-piracy impact on agro-biodiversity is difficult to monitor. But cattle germplasmfrom Asia has been crossed with German breeds but this has failed; otherwise, itcould have had affected biodiversity (i.e. the native breed may have not remained in-tact).

It was noted that there could be cases where bio-piracy may help enrich bio-diver-sity – an example is the ”cattle raids” in Kenya.

Greatest impact of bio-piracy is on the rights of communities e.g. when the Basmatirice of India and rubber from Brazil was taken out of these countries, these resulted tolosses in the countries’ export market and consequently, the loss of income for farm-ers. (Basmati rice could not be exported to the US if it has a patent there because do-ing so will be a violation of the US patent law.)

Impact on Indigenous Knowledge (IK):

Bio-piracy implies piracy of knowledge.

Example: Patent was obtained for turmeric as a wound-healing ointment but thiswas challenged by India and was successful in showing ”evidence ofprior art” that the product given the patent was not a novelty.

Negative impact of bio-piracy in IK:

n The economic benefits shift from the community who conserves and owns theknowledge to companies who obtain patents for IK.

n Denies the credit that should go to IK.


81

Recommendations: Strategies to control bio-piracy

1. At the international level:

The acceptance of and compliance with the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD)particularly on the PIC and MTA (prior informed consent and material transferagreements) that will ensure communities share the benefits of the germplasmtransfer.

2. At the national/local level:

i. To enact legislation that will look into the problems of bio-piracy and solvethem. For example, a legislation that will treat ”oral knowledge” at par withpublished documentation as evidence to show ”prior art” in challenging patentsmade e.g. on IK.

Related issues:

n How does one prove ”oral knowledge to be documented knowledge”?

In Canada, oral evidence ingrained in tradition (e.g. through songs anddances) is taken seriously in courts, although it is a long and painful process.This means there is room for ”customary laws” without necessarily coming upwith written documentation.

n Patents are covered by national laws (not by international laws) making itdifficult for countries to challenge patents given in another country. There isneed to put into the TRIPS framework an international context to bio-piracy.

n Bio-piracy should be treated as a criminal offence and with stiff penalties.The problem is that many of the bio-piracy activities are carried out throughthe scientific research networks – need to have guidelines on this.

n Forgeries of written materials/documentation are something to look into.

ii. Awareness generation and vigilance at the level of communities, local officialsand NGOs. For example, on understanding that taking out materials by touristsmay constitute bio-piracy.


82

List of Abbreviations

AAN The Alternative Agriculture Network, Thailand

AnGR Animal Genetic Resources

CoFaB Convention of Farmers and Breeders, India

DADIS Domestic Animal Diversity Information System

GFAR Global Forum on Agricultural Research

GTZ German Technical Cooperation

HYVs High-yielding varieties

NRM Natural resources management

OAU Organisation of African Unity

PGR Plant Genetic Resources

PIC Prior informed consent

WTO World Trade Organization

BUCAP Biodiversity Use and Conservation Asia Program

CBD Convention on Biodiversity

CBDC Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CIDSE International Cooperation for Development and Solidarity

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GMOs Genetically Modified Organisms

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute, Ethiopia

IPRs Intellectual Property Rights

RAFI Rural Advancement Foundation International

MASIPAG Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development, The Philippines

MTA Material transfer agreements

SEARICE Southeast Asia Regional Institute for Community Education, The Philip-pines

SFOs Small Farmer Organisations

TRIPS Trade-Related Intellectual Property

UNICEF United Nations Fund for Children

UPOV Convention of the International Union for the Protection of New Varietiesof Plants

WHO World Health Organisation of the United Nations

List of Abbreviations

83

Ricardo C. Armonia,CONSULTING TEAM, INC., PHILIP-PINES

Rainer Barthel,Landesanstalt fuerGroßschutzgebiete, Germany

Wolfgang Bayer, consultant, Germany

Patricia Bravo,journalist, Chile

Angelina Briones,Department of Soil Science, Univer-sity of the Philippines Los Baños, Phil-ippines

Rudi Buntzel-Cano,Forum Environment & Development,Germany

Eyasu Elias Fantahun,Soil Fertility Research Coordinator,SOS-Sahel Ethiopia

Ejigu Jonfa,Farmer’s Research Project of FARMAfrica, Awassa, Ethiopia

Antje Feldmann,GEH, Germany

Chiramwiwa Gawi,journalist, Participatory EcologicalLand Use Management, Zimbabwe

Hans-Peter Grunenfelder,SAVE Foundation, Switzerland

Leopoldo Guilaran,MASIPAG, PHILIPPINES

List of Participants


Experiences in Farmers’ Biodiversity ManagementSchorfheide-Chorin, May 16-18, 2000

Susanne Gura,International co-ordination of NGOactivities accompanying GFAR2000,Germany

Hanwant Singh Rathore,Lokhit Pashu-Palak Sansthan, India

Ulrike Herfort,Landesanstalt fuerGroßschutzgebiete, Germany

Carmen Hess,facilitator, Germany

Anita Idel,journalist, Germany

Mariam Jorjadse,Biological Farming AssociationELKANA, Georgia

Gesa Kluth,Landesanstalt fuerGroßschutzgebiete, Germany

Ilse Koehler-Rollefson,League for Pastoral Peoples, Ger-many

Herbert Lohner

Annette von Lossau,GTZ, Germany

Yvonne Mabille,journalist, Germany

Charito Medina,farmer, PHILIPPINES

Annette Meyer,Landesanstalt fuerGroßschutzgebiete, Germany

84

Pat Mooney,Rural Advancement Foundation In-ternational (RAFI), Canada

Simone Neumaier,translator, Germany

Eliud Kihoro Ngunjiri,RODI, Kenya

Levan Paposhvili,Agrobiodiversity Protection Society“Dika”, Georgia

Wilhelmina Pelegrina,Southeast Asia Regional Institute forCommunity Education (SEARICE),Philippines

Stanislau Ramanau,Belorussian Association of Ecologi-cal Agriculture “ZemEKO”, Belarus

Joel Rodriguez,MODE, Philippines

Suman Sahai,Gene Campaign, India

Gudrun Soergel,administrator, Germany

Ute Sprenger,journalist, Germany

Gabriele Stoll,MISEREOR, Germany

Suksan Kantree,Alternative Agriculture Network,Thailand

Govindan Venkataramani,Agricultural Correspondent, THEHINDU, India

Rudolf Voegel,Landesanstalt fuerGroßschutzgebiete, Germany

Jean Marc von der Weid,AS-PTA - Assessoria e Servicos aProjetos em Agricultura Alternativa

Beate Weiskopf,GTZ, GERMANY

Witoon Lianchamroon,BIOTHAI, THAILAND

Ralf Wysujack,Landesanstalt fuerGroßschutzgebiete, Germany


A group of workshop participants

experiences in farmer’s biodiversity...

Documents